Skip to main content Skip to navigation
Spring 2017 – Matthew Unangst I attend class at 12:10

Racism in Sports (Final Project)

Download PDF

Racism is still seen today throughout many parts of the world and is an ongoing problem that many people have tried to put an end to. In sports; however, racism is blatantly clear. Soccer in recent years has seen increased racism. On February 17, 2015, Chelsea FC fans pushed a passenger of the opposing team they were playing against off of a Paris train, stating that there was not enough room. After the black man was pushed off the train, Chelsea FC fans then began, “chanting about World War II, along with shouts of ‘We’re racist, and we like it'” [1]. This whole incident was recorded on film and when Chelsea heard about it, they made a statement saying they would look in to banning any members involved. Although it may seem that sports teams are making conscious efforts to fight racism, it is simply not enough. Soccer is considered the world’s sport, but something that belongs to the world should not be associated with racism. Despite efforts to end racism in sports, racism in society must come to an end, to diminish racism everywhere else. This article raises questions as to whether racism is always going to be a problem in sports because of the immense amount of competition that comes along with it.

The racist instances experienced all throughout sports in recent years have not come without historical relevance. Racism around the world is nothing new, but when it comes to sports, racism has always been a problem. This racism is likely the outcome of the period in time when the color line was broken in sports. Jackie Robinson signing with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1946 ultimately set the foundation for blacks integrating with other races in sports. The roots of this not only lie in the color barrier being broken, but more deeply in the history of blacks and whites being segregated for hundreds of years. While African Americans in countries all around the world tried for years to end segregation, it was evident that was not going to happen anytime soon. Countries such as South Africa, enforced racial segregation and they were not going to make any exceptions when it came to sports. during this time period, African Americans were considered and ‘inferior race,’ so people believed that because of this, blacks were not worthy, or of the same athletic ability as other races. Post World War II attitudes caused the rise of civil rights movements that consequently set the stage for integration in sports. In reality, racial segregation policies were extremely brutal and caused much resistance from countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Britain against South Africa. In turn, these countries and many more were the driving force that helped to integrate different races of people in to the same sports and stop the seemingly never ending battle that is racism.

To begin, the legacy of race and racism go back for hundreds of years and that played a huge role in regards to racism in sports all throughout the 20th century. In particular, the legacy and history of antisemitism is what sparked racism all around the world. After the Franco-Prussian War in 1880, France began experiencing mass amounts of political antisemitism. Even before the war took place, “Ideology during 1860 through 1890 on Jews was based upon a conspiracy theory that ‘could always “prove” that any misfortune was the work of Jews, even in the absence of evidence’” [2]. The aftermath of the war caused Jews to be manipulated by public opinion. Jews made up a huge portion of the working class and had control over world capitalism, so they made for any easy target to be manipulated by the public. In the period after 1880 as times began to change and modernize, “[there was a] connection between new fears uprising from conditions of modernity and old European hatreds that for centuries targeted Jews as the killers of Christ” [3]. Jews were not only seen as a plague to society, but many people saw them as a physical danger as well as a political threat because of their place in the working class. Peoples’ negative opinions of Jews gradually began getting more intense which led to the ghetto isolation of them. In the end, the roots of antisemitism yield the latter half of the 20th Century when the shift of racism moved toward ‘immigrants’ or black people.

In addition, as racism started becoming blatantly clear in the world of sports, African Americans began realizing that they could make a positive change. Jackie Robinson was of the first to make the historic break of the color line in major league baseball that was heard all around the world. In 1945, the general manager of the Red Sox, Eddie Collins, was urged by Boston City Councilor Isadore Muchnick, to start the process of integrating major league baseball teams. Years before this, Eddie Collins was accused of preventing African Americans from trying out for his team, but he denied those charges. Collins then stated that, “he never received a single request for tryout by a colored applicant” [4]. With threats from Muchnick; however, Collins agreed to have an integrated tryout where Jackie Robinson, Marvin Williams, and Sam Jethroe attended. After the tryout took place, then men were told that they would hear from Collins soon, but they never did. Two years after this historic tryout, news broke of Jackie Robinson making the Brooklyn Dodgers and having his first major league appearance in 1947. It was evident that while other teams began accepting African Americans after Jackie Robinson broke the color line, the Red Sox were still against interracial sports teams. People in the mid-1900’s still believed that African Americans did not have the same athletic ability as whites and could not compete at such a high level. “Major league baseball profited from segregation” [5] which is what mainly yielded teams from accepting African Americans at first. Negro teams rented the fields they played on from major league teams, so if teams began integrating then there would be a loss of money. Regardless, these color line transformations gave inciteful information that could be used to teach the role culture played in sport-wide racism and the rise it gave to Civil Rights Movements.

As color lines in sports began to disappear, a change in culture started taking place in countries around the world. Mexico was of the first where this culture change was evident. In the early 1900s, Mexico had a burdened reputation for crime that ensued as they expressed a sense of backwardness as a society. However, when dictator Dorfir Diaz came to power, Mexico shifted from a backward country to a progressive civilization. Diaz wanted respect from leading nations which is what initially drove him to change the overall culture of Mexico. Revolutionary violence; however, yielded this full cultural change while Diaz was still in power, but what came from this revolutionary disorder was, “[a] renaissance in artistic expression and folklore appreciation” [6]. Helen Delpar made a comment on the matter of Mexico’s changing society and, “instead of being a backward country full of bandits as many imagined, [Mexico] was now seen as a nation full of culture” [7]. Because of this new-found culture in Mexico, they were asked to host the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. From there on out, Mexico’s central promotional strategy for the Olympic Games was to alter the negative stereotype associated with Mexico’s native people and change the view of racial “mixture” as a positive instead of a negative. Mexico’s native people were now seen as authentic and no longer a burden while the European faces were seen as progress to a new cosmopolitan. Lastly, although it may have seemed like the world was starting to change for the better and racial differences were being diminished, what ensued at the Olympic Games was something unprecedented.

Furthermore, as the 1968 Olympic Games approached, student protests erupted in Mexico City. Hundreds of people were killed which gave this frightful event the name of the Tlatelolco Massacre. The Mexican government; however, wanted the games to be clean and put on this façade that Mexico was an ideal country with no faults, so they hid the massacre from the rest of the world with great success. The Olympic Games then went as arranged, except for the revolutionary actions of two American entrants in the 200-meter dash, Tommie Smith and John Carlos. “Their plan was inspired by Harry Edward’s Olympic Project for Human Rights which had originally called for an Olympic boycott by all black athletes” [8]. They both ran the 200-meter dash with Smith getting first place and Carlos getting third place. When they mounted the victory stand they held up their black gloved fists as The Star Spangled Banner played in the background. The men also had beads around their neck to symbolize the deaths of thousands of African Americans all around the world. This event shocked the world, “and [because of this] Carlos and Smith were treated like terrorists, as if their fists were guns and they had fired them” [8]. However, this event was seen as a victory for the African American community. In carrying out this silent protest against racism in sports, Carlos and Smith’s voices were clearly heard. Their black gloved fists not only stood for black injustice in regards to sports, “but it saluted black power and black unity” [9]. Tommie Smith and John Carlos were both stripped of their medals and sent home after this historic event, but their stripped medals did not hide the fact that they were going to make their voices heard. Overall, because of Carlos and Smith’s incredible courage to silently speak out in front of the world while putting their athletic careers on the line to stand up for racial discrimination in sports and in society, many other countries around the world were inspired to create change when it came to segregation in sports.

Image result for tommie smith and john carlos

Figure 1: Tommie Smith and John Carlos, gold and bronze medalists in the 200-meter run at the 1968 Olympic Games, engage in a victory stand protest against unfair treatment of blacks in the United States.

Thus, for black athletes, the post 1968 Olympic Games were a time of unprecedented civil rights activism by many black sports figures. Black athletes were involved in black freedom movements that drew attention to the battle of racism in society and in sports that African Americans were suffering from every day. Arthur Ashe was one of the most well-known black activists who played a role in sports and politics in 1968. On September 15, 1968, CBS’s Face the Nation invited Arthur Ashe on their show to discuss his political views on the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the role of black athletes in society. This show was televised nationwide and Ashe received much praise for his courage to go on the show and speak on behalf of the African American community. In turn, the South African government became aware of Ashe’s international activism and in March 1969, “Prime Minister B.J. Vorster personally rejected Ashe’s request for a visa to compete in the South African Open” [10]. The South African government stated they denied his visa because of his overall disapproval to apartheid, but many believe that South Africa rejected him because of the color of his skin. Ashe then used his athletic status to fight against this injustice to the Davis Cup Committee, the United Nations, U.S. Congress, and the ILTF. This resulted in action being taken against south Africa and, “near the end of 1969, a collection of international sports bodies, including the International Olympic Committee, removed South Africa from almost all world sporting events” [11]. This was a monumental victory for Ashe and black activism overall. This incident was the driving force for Arthur Ashe to focus on apartheid activism in South Africa because it affected him personally. In the end, Arthur Ashe’s contributions to the African American community in the aspect of sports sparked upset in other countries against South Africa as they started to take Ashe’s side on the views of apartheid.

Image result for arthur ashe activism in south africa

Figure 2: Arthur Ashe addressing the Special Committee on the policies of apartheid of the government of the republic of South Africa.

Moreover, the history of South Africa plays a vast role in understanding apartheid and why it was present in South Africa for so long. This country was well known worldwide for its excellence in the sporting arena. South Africa was of the first to establish horse-racing in 1802. Many more additional sports prospered as well such as rugby, golf, boxing, and cycling. By the time the national party came into power; however, segregation between groups of athletes had already advanced. The apartheid during this time limited sports teams from being multiracial because the thought was that if it was illegal for blacks and whites to mix in society, then it was illegal for them to mix and compete with each other as well. Many people believed that, “apartheid was the hurdle to integrate sports” [12] because of its complexity in South Africa. There were numerous laws associated with the apartheid such as the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, where owners of properties such as sporting amenities, could prohibit racial groups from entering. The Group Areas Act of 1966 split South Africa into segregated areas based on race which caused black athletes to suffer because they could not journey to competitions that were outside of their segregated areas. For years, apartheid has controlled black involvement in sports and when a survey was conducted in one of South Africa’s four provinces, “in 40% of sports registered, no black participation was recorded” [13]. These numbers caused vast unrest in the black community not only in sports, but in society as well where African Americans had an unequal disadvantage. Consequently, not a decade past without apartheid being the central focus for the African American community’s resistance to its rule.

Additionally, although western nations disapproved of interracial sports teams, the South African government became the only supporter of segregation by the late 1960’s. They felt as though their own racial views were more important than the principle ideals of sports. South Africa also stated that there was evidence to conclude that interracial mixing in sports would cause social stress and racial tension. They believed that if blacks and whites could not get along in society overall, then it would be impossible for them to do so while they are intensely competing with each other. Because of this, only white officials could appear for international federations on behalf of South Africa. As time went on, it seemed as though African Americans voices were not being heard and people were accepting propaganda that black people were in fact not interested in playing sports or they fell victim to conditions that in other peoples’ eyes, were only the faults of their own making. When South Africa reported on Jake Ntuli’s boxing victory in the British Empire flyweight competition in 1951, “the New Zealand Free Lance noted that the ‘pint-sized zulu boy’ was a role model ‘to millions of black men whose opportunities in life are restricted by poverty’” [14]. South African emphasis on the word “poverty” added to their preexisting thoughts of superiority over African Americans. They wanted to subtly show that blacks were an inferior race and they needed to know that. However, in 1963, a chairman of South Africa’s Non-Racial Olympic Committee, Dennis Brutus advocated for the people of the Olympic Movement to join him and many others to fight for interracial sports. When the International Olympic Committee received Brutus’s requests, “the I.O.C.’s member in New Zealand, Arthur Porritt, dismissed Brutus as a ‘well known trouble-maker’” [15]. In the end, it seemed as though African Americans voices were never going to be heard in a country whose policies were solely focused around apartheid.

Image result for arthur ashe international activism

Figure 3: Protest erupts after South Africa becomes the only supporter of segregation in sports in the 1960’s.

Likewise, as nations began working against South Africa to end racial segregation in sports, other nations followed suit. In 1976, Egypt and Morocco were 2 of the over 20 countries that withdrew from the Olympic Games. This boycott was comprised of almost the entire African continent. Only 3 out of the 27 African nations that initially planned to play in the games were remaining. This exemplified that the hard work and dedication of black athletes to make a change in racially segregated sports was ultimately starting to pay off. New Zealand’s government; however, was encouraging a rugby team to travel to South Africa to play despite their radical racial policies. Jean-Claude Ganga, Congo Republic Delegate, helped create this Olympic boycott and stated that he did not understand New Zealand’s reasoning on sending athletes to South Africa and thinks that New Zealand should send their sports teams back home. More nations then began dropping out of the Olympic Games because of New Zealand’s trip to South Africa which prompted Ganga to state, “that just deploring apartheid is not enough” [16]. He believes by New Zealand going to South Africa, they are giving them exactly what they want which is a sports team to play against. Ganga believes if countries isolate themselves from South Africa, then they will have no choice but to get rid of their radical apartheid policies. However, New Zealand does not see eye to eye with Ganga in the slightest. They believe the best way to deal with racial discrimination in sports in South Africa is bringing interracial teams to that country that are good to show South Africa it is possible to have successful interracial sports teams. Lance Cross, a New Zealand member of the I.O.C. believes, “we need to talk to South Africa before we can do anything about apartheid” [17]. Nations isolating themselves from South Africa in Cross’s eyes, is just going to cause massive conflict in the end. Regardless of whether one county believes isolation is the key to end racism in South Africa or whether bringing interracial teams to South Africa is the key, both sides share a common foundation in that apartheid in South Africa needs to be stopped.

Consequently, on March 23, 1970, South Africa was prohibited from participating in the Davis Cup tennis competition, whereas Rhodesia was allowed to compete. Robert B. Colwell of Seattle stated, “It was felt that South African participation would endanger the carrying out of the competition” [18]. One of the main reasons South Africa was banned from the tournament that year was because there would have been teams they were not allowed to play. That past year Czechoslovakia and Poland refused to play South Africa because of their racial politics and segregation of players. Also, four bombs had went off during a tennis series with South Africa and Britain and people were afraid it was going to happen again. In the newspaper it also stated that, “The United States move was triggered by the South African Government’s refusal to grant Arthur Ashe, the American Negro star, a visa to play there” [19]. South Africa did not allow mixed competition which is why so many people became infuriated with the matter and demanded South Africa be prohibited from competing. This newspaper was written in a time when there was still much racism occurring, but people were finally starting to take a stance against it to demolish racism. Many reported in the newspaper that the Ashe incident was not the main reason for South Africa not being able to compete, but it is clear to see that was one of the main factors in deciding based on their apartheid policies. Rhodesia on the other hand was invited to compete because they were finally able to prove that colored men were playing with them in tournaments and not just being benched. This was hard news for South Africa to hear that they could not compete as they were not able to compete in the last Olympic Games and the soccer World Cup that summer because of their radical racial views and politics. This incident exemplified the changing positive attitudes of other nations toward interracial sports teams and the fight to diminish racism in sport and society altogether.

In conclusion, the historical relevance of racism revealed the racist actions of countries, such as South Africa, not only in society, but in sports as well. Not only did Jackie Robinson’s break in the color barrier give rise to change in segregated sports teams, but activists such as Arthur Ashe, Tommie Smith, and John Carlos made people realize that segregated sports teams were unfair and something that needed to be left in the past. South Africa being the only country with segregated sports teams in the late 1960’s, felt that blacks and whites were being segregated for their own good even though that was not the case. Many other countries worked to change this seemingly never ending stereotype in South Africa by refusing to play them in sporting events. South Africa’s brutal apartheid policies caused counties such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Britain to act against them. The efforts of these countries not only helped to set the foundation to create a universal negative view toward apartheid, but these efforts also became the driving force in ending racial segregation in sports all around the world.

Endnotes

[1] Shulman, Dan. “Indirect Kick: Racism in Soccer-It Needs to Stop.” University Wire. February 24, 2015. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1657710269?accountid=14902 (Accessed January 15, 2017).

[2] Lentin, Alana. Racism and Anti-Racism in Europe. London, GB: Pluto Press, 2004. Accessed March 15, 2017. ProQuest ebrary.

[3] Lentin, Racism and Anti-Racism in Europe, 2004.

[4] In the Game: New Essays on Race, Identity, and Sports. Gordonsville, US: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Accessed March 15, 2017. ProQuest ebrary.

[5] In the Game, 2006.

[6] In the Game, 2006.

[7] In the Game, 2006.

[8] Greil, Marcus. “1968.” Common Knowledge 15, no. 3 (2009): 331-335. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed March 16, 2017).

[9] Greil, Common Knowledge, 332.

[10] Hall, Eric Allen. Arthur Ashe: Tennis and Justice in the Civil Rights Era. Baltimore, US: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. Accessed March 16, 2017. ProQuest ebrary.

[11] Hall, Arthur Ashe, 2014.

[12] Riordan, Professor Jim, and Riordan, Jim. The International Politics of Sport in the Twentieth Century (1). London, US: Routledge, 2002. Accessed March 16, 2017. ProQuest ebrary.

[13] Riordan, The International Politics of Sport in the Twentieth Century, 2002.

[14] Booth, Douglas. “Hitting Apartheid for Six? The Politics of the South African Sports Boycott.” Journal of Contemporary History 38, no. 3 (2003): 477-493. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180648.

[15] Booth, Journal of Contemporary History, 479.

[16] By Steve Cady Special to The New, York Times. (1976, Jul. 21). Egypt, Morocco Join Olympic Walkout. New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/122855937?accountid=14902.

[17] Cady, New York Times, July 21, 1976.

[18] Fred Tupper Special to The New, York Times. (1970, Mar 24). South Africa Barred in Davis Cup Tennis. New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/118838353?accountid=14902 (accessed February 22, 2017).

[19] New York Times, 1970, Mar 24.

Illustrations

Figure 1. Tommie Smith and John Carlos, gold and bronze medalists in the 200-meter run at the 1968 Olympic Games, engage in a victory stand protest against unfair treatment of blacks in the United States, https://theundefeated.com/features/john-carlos-and-tommie-smith-say-carmelo-anthony-is-poised-to-carry-the-torch/.

Figure 2. Arthur Ashe addressing the Special Committee on the policies of apartheid of the government of the republic of South Africa, http://africanactivist.msu.edu/image.php?objectid=32-131-443.

Figure 3. Protest Erupts after South Africa becomes the only supporter of segregation in sports in the 1960’s, http://www.biography.com/people/arthur-ashe-9190544.

 

 

Whaling – Research Assignment #5, Final Project

Download PDF

Jacob Johnson

The Unabated Cruelty Towards Whales

The act of whaling has long been a source of economic wealth and cultural practice to many societies across the globe. Whaling’s existence stretches back thousands of years, but it was not until the more recent centuries that it began to have significant impacts, both positive and negative, on the world. The popularity of the industry stems from the resources it produced. Food, industrial products, and fuel could all be attained from the whaling industry in large quantities, adding to the acceptance of the act for many years. However, due to the rapid decline in population and the cruelty associated with whaling, much of the world ended its involvement, with the exception of a few nations. Canada, Norway, Japan, and Iceland all continue to partake in the annual hunting of whales, disregarding a worldwide ban made some three decades ago. Human societies have always used their environment to better their existence in terms of economic prosperity, cultural maintenance, quality of life, etc., but when negative impacts can be clearly seen it is a sure sign that change is needed.

[1] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[2] The Hindu; Chennai, 24 May 2016.

Geographic Focus: Norway, Japan, Iceland, Canada

Search Terms: Whaling AND (Norway OR Japan OR Iceland OR Canada)

Conference to Debate Whaling Ban

The article, “Conference to Debate Whaling Ban”, was published on July 10, 1979 by Webster Norman of The Globe and Mail, a news center located in the city of Toronto, Canada. The desired audience could most certainly be anyone concerned or intrigued by the whaling industry, but the language in which the article was written suggests an audience encompassing of political personnel and/or those educated on the subject. Norman wrote the article with the purpose of providing an update on the current matters of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In 1979, this was especially important as a new ban had just been introduced by nations who support the conservation of whales, but heavily debated by those who sought the continued use of the industry. Up until this time, the whaling industry had been a crucial aspect of many nations’ economies, like that of Japan and the Soviet Union. The recognition, however, of the depleting numbers of whales throughout the worlds’ oceans soon emerged, resulting in its development as a central issue for conservationists everywhere. Those who relied significantly on the materials produced by the industry, or just plainly saw few issues surrounding it, opposed the ban, and those who feared for the extinction of these mammals fought for it. Race and cultural boundaries play a rather large role in the whaling industry. With the majority of participating societies being indigenous peoples, issues surrounding the abolishing of the practice arise almost indefinitely, as whaling has played critical part in the everyday lives of these nations for centuries. In spite of this, the world pushes forward with the erasing of the industry, leaving a clear reason why these societies are so resisting of this “worldwide effort”. Solutions on how to traverse these obstacles while remaining sensitive to the ongoing cultural practices are a must if any cooperation is to be received by modern whalers today. In terms of unspoken assumptions made by the news article, Norman writes as though the audience contains some sort of prior or basic knowledge on the issue. Also, the source assumes that the reader, though not entirely, supports the proposed whaling ban set forth by the IWC. This can easily be seen in the concluding paragraph which states, “survival of a species should take precedence over the rights of one particular cultural group of human beings” (Norman, 1979).

[3] Norman, Webster, “Conference to Debate Whaling Ban”, The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont., 10 July 1979, http://search.proquest.com/newsstand/docview/387094327/689A122BEEDD4AA6PQ/11?accountid=14902 (30 Jan. 2017).

[4] The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont., 10 July 1978.

[Question A] – There are a plethora of resources to be acquired from the whaling industry, but what were the most vital of these resources? Did a societies’ geographic location play a part in which resources were most used? Was whaling the only method to obtain these resources when the industry first began?

[Question B] – Whaling has existed for thousands of years, but when did it begin to have significant impacts on the world’s economy? Which nation, if any, catapulted the industry into the “mainstream”, allowing for other nations to follow their lead?

Geographic Focus: Japan, Scandinavian countries, Soviet Union, Canada.

Search Terms: Whaling AND (Norway OR Japan OR Iceland OR Canada)

Primary Search Database: ProQuest Newsstand

Primary Source Search Date Limiter: Before 1980. The late 1970’s seem to contain much controversy regarding the whaling industry in the regions listed above.

Paragraph Outline:

Hook/Introduction – The act of whaling has long been a source of economic wealth and cultural practice to many societies across the globe. Whaling’s existence stretches back thousands of years, but it was not until the more recent centuries that it began to have significant impacts, both positive and negative, on the world. The popularity of the industry stems from the resources it produced. Food, industrial products, and fuel could all be attained from the whaling industry in large quantities, adding to the acceptance of the act for many years. However, due to the rapid decline in population and the cruelty associated with whaling, much of the world ended its involvement, with the exception of a few nations. Canada and Japan both continue to partake in the annual hunting of whales, disregarding worldwide restrictions set in place. Human societies have always used their environment to better their existence in terms of economic prosperity, cultural maintenance, quality of life, etc., but when negative impacts can be clearly seen it is a sure sign that change is needed.

Early Thesis – Whaling has been a source of economic prosperity and cultural significance for many societies, but the continued use of the industry in lieu of the modern restrictions set in place create unnecessary conflict, requiring some form of intervention to either eradicate the act completely or compromise with it.

Paragraph 2 – Background of whaling and why it was a major industry to begin with. What made the industry so significant? Who is whaling today? [7,8]

Paragraph 3 – Introduce Canada, Japan, other nations and their history with whaling [5,6,8]

Paragraph 4 – Discuss the roots of how whaling started and why it is culturally significant to certain nations. [7]

Paragraph 5 – Introduce the idea of how to compromise with the whaling debate and possible solutions to the contemporary issue. [7]

Paragraph 6 – Societal problems with the whaling industry and the restrictions on whaling that eventually developed, and why others view the industry in a negative light. How and why the roots of the issue developed. Reiterate idea of compromise based on the roots of the issue. [1,2,3,4,9]

Paragraph 7 – Should whaling continue? Cultural significance vs. Science? [1,5,6,7,9]

Paragraph 8 – Conclusion.

[1] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[2] The Hindu; Chennai, 24 May 2016.

[3] Norman, Webster, “Conference to Debate Whaling Ban”, The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont., 10 July 1979, http://search.proquest.com/newsstand/docview/387094327/689A122BEEDD4AA6PQ/11?accountid=14902 (30 Jan. 2017).

[4] The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont., 10 July 1978.

[5] M’Gonigle, M. (1979, Jul 18). Canada’s foot-dragging on whales a sad spectacle. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/387111184?accountid=14902

[6] Catalinac, Amy L., and Gerald Chan. 2005. “Japan, the West, and the whaling issue: understanding the Japanese side.” Japan Forum 17, no. 1: 133-163. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 22, 2017).

[7] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[8] Bockstoce, John R. Whales, ice, and men: the history of whaling in the western Arctic. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995.

[9] Howarth, Jean. 1978. “Fighting for Whales in Ring, Not on Sidelines.” The Globe and Mail, Aug 07. https://search.proquest.com/docview/387092518?accountid=14902.

RA #4 – Rough Draft (Paragraphs 1-6)

Whales and Society

            The act of whaling has long been a source of economic wealth and cultural significance to many societies across the globe. Whaling’s existence stretches back thousands of years, but it was not until the more recent centuries that it began to have noteworthy impacts, both positive and negative, on the world. The popularity of the industry stems from the resources it produced and cultural maintenance it allowed for. Food, industrial products, and fuel could all be attained from the whaling industry in large quantities, adding to the acceptance of the act for many years. However, due to the rapid decline in population and the cruelty associated with whaling, much of the world ended its involvement, with the exception of a few nations. Canada, Japan, and other northern territories continue to partake in the annual hunting of whales, disregarding worldwide restrictions set in place. Human societies have always used their environment to better their existence in terms of economic prosperity, cultural upkeep, quality of life, etc., but when negative impacts can be clearly seen it raises the question on whether change should be implemented or not. Whaling has been a source of economic prosperity and cultural worth for many societies, but the continued use of the industry in lieu of the modern restrictions set in place create unnecessary conflict, thus meaning additional knowledge must be acquired regarding the roots of the practice and the reasons for it before society decides whether to eradicate the act completely or compromise with it.

Whaling has long been the primary means of survival for a number of civilizations, with one whale being able to feed an entire community for months on end. From this need and appreciation of whales emerged a cultural consequence that would propel the whale upward in terms of value and overall worth. Yet, outside of these traditions lies a world where the majority of nations look down upon the practice. Adam Wesolowski, author of the article Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate, refers to the ethics of whaling and draws upon a common anti-whaling activist attitude, which goes “the high intelligence and social behavior of whales indicate that they are highly developed creatures much more similar to human beings than animals like fish or livestock”[1], shedding an immoral light upon the industry. While this demonstrates the mainstream attitudes towards whaling, Wesolowski then precedes to acknowledge why whaling has, and continues to be, a key aspect of life for many. He states, “the Icelandic, Norwegian, and Japanese governments, and various indigenous groups, view whaling as no different than other forms of fishing and, more importantly, a crucial component of their cultures”.[2] Thus brings the debate that has been raging for decades; to whale or not to whale. It is easy for people to target certain groups and accuse them of committing crimes that spit on “modern” ethics, but what these accusations fail to grasp, though, is the tradition associated with what they are being accused of. John R. Bockstoce, author of the book Whales, Ice, and Men, provides perspective on just how long whaling has been around. Bockstoce writes, “since at least 500 B.C.E, native peoples along the Siberian shore regularly pursued marine animals, including the largest that came within their reach, the bowhead whale”[3], which allows others to see just how large the scope of whaling is, and to realize how difficult it would be for these peoples to simply quit partaking in it.

A few regions of the world make up the vast majority of the annual whale intake; Japan, Canada, and several northern regions such as Iceland and Norway. It is safe to say that these regions of the world are the heavyweights within the industry. All of these nations are deeply invested in whaling, meeting, or sometimes exceeding, the annual quota of whales on a regular basis. One thing in common with each of these nations is their reluctance to follow suit with the demands of other anti-whaling nations, who call upon them to withdraw themselves from the industry. Like mentioned before, this is easier said than done, as the individual histories and traditions linked with whaling would make for a very difficult transition. An example of said hesitation can be seen in Canada’s meeting with the International Whaling Commission in 1979, where Canada took a firm stance on its position on the bowhead whale intake, the most endangered whale species and most frequently debated quota by scientific committees[4]. As a result of their disagreement with the demands thrown at them, these countries have endured mockery and demonization by those who pitched the demands in the first place. Take New Zealand and Australia for example, two of the most vocal opponents to whaling, who depicts Japan “as an economic animal and environmental outlaw, with its traditional custom being painted as barbaric, uncivilized and archaic, something that is out of tune with an environmentally sensitive ‘world’”.[5] The fact of the matter, however, is that these practices have been around for generations, much like other “more accepted” traditions seen throughout the world. It is today’s environmentally sensitive world that is to blame for the conflicts related to whaling among nations, which is to blame for the failure of society to take into account the roots of why whaling remains to this day.

The definition of culture refers to the arts or other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. Another way of putting this is that culture is a collection of human manifestations, and there are no boundaries, that in turn provide some grouping of humans with a certain distinction from others. Whaling is what excludes the four nations introduced earlier from the rest of the world, and is what makes them culturally unique. The disregard of culture, still, is a major crisis that has yet to be dealt with. Wesolowski states, “the impact of culture on the acceptance of international law has remained a ubiquitous issue in international law in areas as varied as human rights law and international trade law”[6], and because of this, whale preservationists take on the role of being culturally imperialist through imposing their values on the cultural preferences of people who have hunted whales for generations[7]. Generations is the key word here. The roots of the whaling issue today are found within the struggle for tradition and sacrifice.

The hunting of whales has depleted their population significantly, there is no denying that, but the forceful demands to give up on a tradition spanning hundreds of years is almost unrealistic. On the other hand, hunters today are used not just for sport, but to maintain a steady wildlife population that benefits entire ecosystems. There are seasons for whaling as well, but more often than not, whalers tend to dismiss these regulations and hunt more than their quota allows, therefore causing the whale population to sink over time. It seems as if the need to deliberately violate rules or to intentionally criticize the other is the reason for the issues that have manifested themselves. Whale populations across the globe would remain healthy if the industry would stick to their quotas, and whalers would most likely hunt less whales if the remainder of the world weren’t demeaning them recurrently. Wesolowski brings in a possible solution to this issue; a compromise. He says, “those nations who might want to continue to whale could purchase additional whale quotas from nations that value them less, with any additional profits reinvested into oceanic environmental clean-up”[8]. Negotiations like these would aid in solving the contemporary issue that is whaling, and allow for necessary action to take place that would lead to the development of a society based around cooperation rather than division. Understanding what has developed because of this conflict, of course, and how it relates to the contemporary issue as a whole is essential to solving it.

            A negative spotlight shines down on the whaling industry, man-made in construction and biased in nature. The spotlight illuminates the so-called cruelty or immoral nature of whaling and all who partake in it. In an article written by R. Keerthana, called The unabated cruelty towards whales, a number of truths meant to be disturbing are revealed. Keerthana writes, “despite a ban, whaling is continued in countries like Japan, Norway and Iceland. As many as 2000 whales are killed every year”[9]. Keerthana explains two issues here within the scale of a larger one. Whalers are ignoring a legal ban, and more whales are dying because of it. The problems found here are both associated with the whaling industry, which supports the ideals presented by the anti-whaling community. However, in the article, Conference to debate whaling ban, Norman Webster stated “we believe that the survival of a species should take precedence over the rights of one particular cultural group of human beings”[10], clearly showing an absolute disrespect for the cultural practices demonstrated by several nations. With this, anti-whaling activists are now also put in a shallow light, and makes way for an even playing field between the two teams; the whaling industry and those against it. Cooperation between the two parties is how this contemporary issue is put to rest, which is clearly seen in Jean Howarth’s article Fighting for whales in ring, not on sidelines, where she says “Most nations of the world are not interested in commercial whaling. A few of them who actively oppose whaling belong to the IWC … Even if they were, they could not legally prevent the whaling nations from killing whales. They can only try to convince them that their practices are wrong, and they can do that more effectively within the IWC than by criticizing them from outside”[11]. Howarth is able to reiterate the central issue here. Focusing more on peaceful means of compromise rather than offensive targeting is how progress towards a common goal can be made, and is the answer to the whaling debate.

[1] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[2] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[3] Bockstoce, John R. Whales, ice, and men: the history of whaling in the western Arctic. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995), 9.

[4] M’Gonigle, M. (1979, Jul 18). Canada’s foot-dragging on whales a sad spectacle. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/387111184?accountid=14902

[5] Catalinac, Amy L., and Gerald Chan. 2005. “Japan, the West, and the whaling issue: understanding the Japanese side.” Japan Forum 17, no. 1: 133-163. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 22, 2017).

[6] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[7] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[8] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[9] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[10] Norman, Webster, “Conference to Debate Whaling Ban”, The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont., 10 July 1979, http://search.proquest.com/newsstand/docview/387094327/689A122BEEDD4AA6PQ/11?accountid=14902 (30 Jan. 2017).

[11] Howarth, Jean. 1978. “Fighting for Whales in Ring, Not on Sidelines.” The Globe and Mail, Aug 07. https://search.proquest.com/docview/387092518?accountid=14902.

RA #5 – Final Draft

Whales and Society

            The act of whaling has long been a source of economic wealth and cultural significance to many societies across the globe. Whaling’s existence stretches back thousands of years, but it was not until the more recent centuries that it began to have noteworthy impacts, both positive and negative, on the world. The popularity of the industry stems from the resources it produced and cultural maintenance it allowed for. Food, industrial products, and fuel could all be attained from the whaling industry in large quantities, adding to the acceptance of the act for many years. However, due to the rapid decline in population and the cruelty associated with whaling, much of the world ended its involvement, with the exception of a few nations. Canada, Japan, and other northern territories continue to partake in the annual hunting of whales, disregarding worldwide restrictions set in place. Human societies have always used their environment to better their existence in terms of economic prosperity, cultural upkeep, quality of life, etc., but when negative impacts can be clearly seen it raises the question on whether change should be implemented or not. Whaling has been a source of economic prosperity and cultural worth for many societies, but the continued use of the industry in lieu of the modern restrictions set in place create unnecessary conflict, thus meaning additional knowledge must be acquired regarding the roots of the practice and the reasons for it before society decides whether to eradicate the act completely or compromise with it; with these roots being planted primarily in the controversy surrounding its cultural practice, and in the emergence of an environmentally sensitive world focused on natural conservation rather than maintenance of tradition.

Whaling has long been the primary means of survival for a number of civilizations, with one whale being able to feed an entire community for months on end. From this need and appreciation of whales emerged a cultural consequence that would propel the whale upward in terms of value and overall worth. Yet, outside of these traditions lies a world where the majority of nations look down upon the practice. Adam Wesolowski, author of the article “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate“, refers to the ethics of whaling and draws upon a common anti-whaling activist attitude, which goes “the high intelligence and social behavior of wha

Figure 1: Native American man with a large whaling harpoon

les indicate that they are highly developed creatures much more similar to human beings than animals like fish or livestock”[1], shedding an immoral light upon the industry. While this demonstrates the mainstream attitudes towards whaling, Wesolowski then precedes to acknowledge why whaling has, and continues to be, a key aspect of life for many. He states, “the Icelandic, Norwegian, and Japanese governments, and various indigenous groups, view whaling as no different than other forms of fishing and, more importantly, a crucial component of their cultures”.[2] Thus brings the debate that has been raging for decades; to whale or not to whale. It is easy for people to target certain groups and accuse them of committing crimes that spit on “modern” ethics, but what these accusations fail to grasp, though, is the tradition associated with what they are being accused of. John R. Bockstoce, author of the book Whales, Ice, and Men, provides perspective on just how long whaling has been around. Bockstoce writes, “since at least 500 B.C.E, native peoples along the Siberian shore regularly pursued marine animals, including the largest that came within their reach, the bowhead whale”[3], which allows others to see just how large the scope of whaling is, and to realize how difficult it would be for these peoples to simply quit partaking in it.

Figure 2: Recent approximations of Icelandic, Japanese, and Norwegian whaling intake

A few regions of the world make up the vast majority of the annual whale intake; Japan, Norway, and Iceland[4],[5], as discussed in an article written by R. Keerthana, called “The unabated cruelty towards whales“, and by Michael M’Gonigle in his work “Canada’s Foot-Dragging on Whales a Sad SpectacleIt is safe to say that these regions of the world are the heavyweights within the industry. All of these nations are deeply invested in whaling, meeting, or sometimes exceeding, the annual quota of whales on a regular basis[6]. One thing in common with each of these nations is their reluctance to follow suit with the demands of other anti-whaling nations, who call upon them to withdraw themselves from the industry[7]. Like mentioned before, this is easier said than done, as the individual histories and traditions linked with whaling would make for a very difficult transition. An example of said hesitation can be seen in Canada’s meeting with the International Whaling Commission in 1979, as conversed by M’Gonigle, where Canada took a firm stance on its position on the bowhead whale intake, the most endangered whale species and most frequently debated quota by scientific committees[8]. As a result of their disagreement with the demands thrown at them, these countries have endured mockery and demonization by those who pitched the demands in the first place. Take New Zealand and Australia for example, two of the most vocal opponents to whaling, and who according to Amy L. Catalinac in her article “Japan, the West, and the Whaling Issue: Understanding the Japanese Side” depicts Japan “as an economic animal and environmental outlaw, with its traditional custom being painted as barbaric, uncivilized and archaic, something that is out of tune with an environmentally sensitive ‘world’”.[9] The fact of the matter, however, is that these practices have been around for generations, much like other “more accepted” traditions seen throughout the world. It is today’s environmentally sensitive world that is to blame for the conflicts related to whaling among nations, which is to blame for the failure of society to take into account the roots of why whaling remains to this day.

The definition of culture refers to the arts or other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. Another way of putting this is that culture is a collection of human manifestations, and there are no boundaries, that in turn provide some grouping of humans with a certain distinction from others. Whaling is what excludes the four nations introduced earlier from the rest of the world, and is what makes them culturally unique. The disregard of culture, still, is a major crisis that has yet to be dealt with. Wesolowski states, “the impact of culture on the acceptance of international law has remained a ubiquitous issue in international law in areas as varied as human rights law and international trade law”[10], and because of this, whale preservationists take on the role of being culturally imperialist through imposing their values on the cultural preferences of people who have hunted whales for generations[11]. Generations is the key word here. The roots of the whaling issue today are found within the struggle for tradition and sacrifice.

Figure 3: Worldwide population decline of various whale species from 1910 to 1990

The hunting of whales has depleted their population significantly, there is no denying that, but the forceful demands to give up on a tradition spanning hundreds of years is almost unrealistic. On the other hand, hunters today are used not just for sport, but to maintain a steady wildlife population that benefits entire ecosystems. There are seasons for whaling as well, but more often than not, whalers tend to dismiss these regulations and hunt more than their quota allows, therefore causing the whale population to sink over time[12],[13]. It seems as if the need to deliberately violate rules or to intentionally criticize the other is the reasonfor the issues that have manifested themselves. Whale populations across the globe would remain healthy if the industry would stick to their quotas, and whalers would mostlikely hunt less whales if the remainder of the world weren’t demeaning them recurrently. Wesolowski brings in a possible solution to this issue; a compromise. He says, “those nations who might want to continue to whale could purchase additional whale quotas from nations that value them less, with any additional profits reinvested into oceanic environmental clean-up”[14]. Negotiations like these would aid in solving the contemporary issue that is whaling, and allow for necessary action to take place that would lead to the development of a society based around cooperation rather than division. Understanding what has developed because of this conflict, of course, and how it relates to the contemporary issue as a whole is essential to solving it.

A negative spotlight shines down on the whaling industry, man-made in construction and biased in nature. The spotlight illuminates the so-called cruelty or immoral nature of whaling and all who partake in it. Keerthana also mentions that a number of truths meant to be disturbing are revealed, and writes, “despite a ban, whaling is continued in countries like Japan, Norway and Iceland. As many as 2000 whales are killed every year”[15]. Keerthana explains two issues here within the scale of a larger one. Whalers are ignoring a legal ban, and more whales are dying because of it. The problems found here are both associated with the whaling industry, which supports the ideals presented by the anti-whaling community. However, in the article, “Conference to Debate Whaling Ban, Norman Webster stated “we believe that the survival of a species should take precedence over the rights of one particular cultural group of human beings”[16], clearly showing an absolute disrespect for the cultural practices demonstrated by several nations. With this, anti-whaling activists are now also put in a shallow light, and makes way for an even playing field between the two teams; the whaling industry and those against it. Cooperation between the two parties is how this contemporary issue is put to rest, which is clearly seen in Jean Howarth’s article “Fighting For Whales in Ring, Not on Sidelines, where she says “Most nations of the world are not interested in commercial whaling. A few of them who actively oppose whaling belong to the IWC … Even if they were, they could not legally prevent the whaling nations from killing whales. They can only try to convince them that their practices are wrong, and they can do that more effectively within the IWC than by criticizing them from outside”[17]. Howarth is able to reiterate the central issue here. Focusing more on peaceful means of compromise rather than offensive targeting is how progress towards a common goal can be made, and is the answer to the whaling debate.

The roots of the whaling debate stem from the newfound societal ideals that surround progress, and the casting off of practices not desirable, or suitable, for a sensitive world. It may seem contradictory in the sense that this sensitivity is being used to save whales, but at the same time, is a negative aspect of this issue. This developed sensitivity plays the role of a double edge sword, benefiting certain facets of life and devastating others. Whaling is a victim of this sensitivity, however, those who do whale fight back in order to maintain tradition and cultural practice, for it represents the way of life for many societies and the primary means by which ancestral peoples, and their subsequent generations, have survived. So here lies the center of this contemporary issue, the integrated sensitivities among certain topics, whaling being of them, and the seemingly unsolvable disputes that follow suit. Taking strides to understand the ways in which issues such as this can be addressed is vital, for it allows for a future with compromise, and in this case, a future in which whales can return to the depths of their vast home, instead of being brought to the surface, like they have been for centuries.

[1] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[2] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[3] Bockstoce, John R. Whales, ice, and men: the history of whaling in the western Arctic. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995), 9.

[4] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[5] M’Gonigle, M. (1979, Jul 18). Canada’s foot-dragging on whales a sad spectacle. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/387111184?accountid=14902.

[6] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[7] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[8] M’Gonigle, M. (1979, Jul 18). Canada’s foot-dragging on whales a sad spectacle. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/387111184?accountid=14902

[9] Catalinac, Amy L., and Gerald Chan. 2005. “Japan, the West, and the whaling issue: understanding the Japanese side.” Japan Forum 17, no. 1: 133-163. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 22, 2017).

[10] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[11] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[12] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[13] M’Gonigle, M. (1979, Jul 18). Canada’s foot-dragging on whales a sad spectacle. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/387111184?accountid=14902

[14] Wesolowski, Adam. “Taking it off the Table: A Critical View of Culture in the Whaling Debate.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26 (2013): 99-116. Accessed March 22, 2017. Search It.

[15] Keerthana, R. “The Unabated Cruelty towards Whales.” The Hindu; Chennai 24 May 2016: n. pag. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/1790560367?accountid=14902>.

[16] Norman, Webster, “Conference to Debate Whaling Ban”, The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont., 10 July 1979, http://search.proquest.com/newsstand/docview/387094327/689A122BEEDD4AA6PQ/11?accountid=14902 (30 Jan. 2017).

[17] Howarth, Jean. 1978. “Fighting for Whales in Ring, Not on Sidelines.” The Globe and Mail, Aug 07. https://search.proquest.com/docview/387092518?accountid=14902.

Illustrations

Figure 1. Native American Indian Photographs, Pinterest,  https://www.pinterest.com/pin/570549846520512134/?lp=true

Figure 2. Whales Killed by Iceland, Japan and Norway 2010-2015, The Maritime Executive, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/norways-whaling-comes-under-fire

Figure 3. A History of Commercial Whaling 1910-1990, McGraw Hill Education, 1998, http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/olc_linkedcontent/j_enhancement/raven_27-3.html

Mexico’s War on Drugs Fueled by American Consumption and Policies

Download PDF

Mexico has been enveloped in a war surrounding the drug trade across the American boarder for over a century. Since 1914 numerous policies in both Mexico and America have been set in place to try and control the lucrative trade. [1] Now, even though drug trade has proved to be an issue since the early 1900’s, it was not until the

Figure 1: Time-line showing drug control policies set in place in a 160 year time frame.

the 1960’s that a significant rise in drug culture occurred. This culture exploded in the 1980’s and has since caused significant issues in the United States and more notably in Mexico, where drug crime is now integral to the countries identity. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin are transported across the boarder to America yearly, making Mexico the U.S.’s largest narcotics supplier. The illegal trade of these highly demanded narcotics has caused a vast amount of crime and grief in Mexico. Today the war on drugs is still being fought in the bordering countries, with Mexico being affected the most.  A British frontline reporter stationed in Mexico has been documenting the drug war for over twelve years. During his time in Mexico he has seen many violent acts performed by the infamous cartels. [2] But, it was not until 2006 that he noticed a huge increase in crimes committed by these gangs that have grown to such power due to the huge amount of drugs that is being illegally trafficked to the United States. Mexico’s current state of unruliness begs the historical question of how narcotics became powerful enough to fuel over one-hundred years of conflict.

 

To find the root of an issue that has prevailed throughout the years, one has to dig deep through all the layers of information before finally striking the initial cause. When it comes to the drug war in Mexico there are a lot of layers, but each one contains vital information that sheds light on what events were the embers that eventually sparked the blazing fire that is Mexico’s current war on drugs. After sifting through all the information, it can be seen that the United States of America has indirectly caused Mexico’s drug war due to its high demand for narcotics and the policies that it set in place to combat the drug scene. In 1914  this effect can first be seen when the U.S. passed the Harrison Tax Act that outlawed opiates and cocaine. Then in 1919 prohibition was set in place, although this law dealt with illegalizing the consumption of alcohol it opened the door for many American’s to turn to drug usage. For, speakeasies infamous to the roaring ‘20’s scene were not only a popular place for alcohol to be consumed, these back door establishments also attracted and bred marijuana and cocaine users. [3] In the 1930’s American officials started to recognize the expansion of the drug scene, mainly that of marijuana, and taxes and laws were set in place in an attempt to slow and eventually stamp out the use of cannabis. But, despite their efforts marijuana usage continued to grow [4].

The U.S. was not alone when it came to setting policies in place that restricted the flow of drugs across the border. In 1923 Mexico placed their own set of restrictions that banned the importation of narcotics into Mexico.  Then in 1927 the exportation of heroin and marijuana was also made illegal. [5] In 1948 Mexico finally decided to enact, “Mexico’s first “national eradication campaign,” also called La Gran Campaña (the Great Campaign).” [6] This campaign took the burden out of the hands of the Mexican police force, who proved to be ineffective, and placed it onto the shoulders of the country’s military. The military’s job was to do their best to remove all opium and marijuana fields from Mexico’s land through burning and stamping methods. Unfortunately, the combination of the U.S.’s and Mexico’s “clever” restriction policies only accomplished the raising the demand and price of the coveted narcotics. With such a considerable profit to be made underground operations began to flourish, for marijuana, cocaine, and opium cultivators simply turned to the murder or bribery of Mexican officials to keep their production amounts flowing. [7]

Figure 2: Mexican Soldiers Burn Largest Marijuana Field Discovered in Mexico.

Policies remained relatively the same in both America and Mexico until the 1960’s where it became evident that the current set of eradication methods were proving to be unsuccessful. By 1967 thirteen percent of Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five confessed to have consumed marijuana, a number that rose ten percent in a matter of only five years. Undoubtedly, the hippie scene spurred by the Vietnam War defiantly contributed to the rising demand of narcotics in the United States. [8] In 1968 to combat the drug scene that was still growing despite the efforts of the Mexican and U.S. government, the two countries decided to work together to implement Operation Condor. Operation Condor involved Mexico using the U.S.’s aerial surveillance technology to target opium, cocaine, and marijuana crops by spraying them with herbicides.  This proved to be a successful tactic and soon the three narcotics were reduced significantly, for on an annual basis around fifteen-thousand acres of marijuana and thirty thousand acres of opium were effectively destroyed.[9] But, this was not achieved with out consequences, for, “. . .stiffer anti-drug law enforcement, particularly eradication and interdiction programs, tend to have a “cartelization” effect on the market, in the sense that they push less daring and smaller traffickers out of the business and thus benefit the most powerful and organized”. [10] These more ‘powerful and organized’ groups became the infamous drug cartels that hold so much power today.

Figure 3: Drug Cartels Areas of Influence in Mexico

Drug cartels hold the most power in the drug scene, even more so than that of the United States and Mexican governments. Whenever a stricter law is set in place, the cartels are able to rapidly adjust and continue on with business as usual. For instance, when Operation Condor was enacted, cartels responded by spreading out crops to make them hard to locate from the air.[11] When authorities would get on the trail of cartels, spies would tip off the cartels allowing them to get away at the last second. It seems as if it does not matter how severe the laws become, for as determined as drug traffickers are, they always seem to find a loophole. [12] Although, sometimes it is not the traffickers them selves finding a way out of being convicted. For instance it can be the judges who reside on the bench who let the cartels off.  This can be because they were bribed or it can also be a result of the judges finding the punishment to not fit the crime, for many in the judiciary community find the laws set in place to control drugs to be too harsh. [13]

By the 1980’s not much progress had been in made despite the efforts of the Mexican and American governments to eradicate the usage and trade of drugs between their countries. Each law that had been set in place focused on getting rid of the drug scene proved to be unsuccessful in controlling drug trafficking between the two countries. By, 2006 the situation in Mexico had only became worse, forcing President Felipe Calderón to declare an official War on Drugs in his country. [14] As of today, ten years after the declaration of war, the drug trade has still not come to an end. If anything it has only grown, especially since various states in the U.S. have lifted the ban on marijuana increasing its demand. Many claim that if the American government makes Marijuana legal in the whole county then the underground trafficking of drugs, that has caused so much violence and military attention in the past decades, would be diminished. But, as of now both the U.S. and the Mexican government are still pouring billions of dollars into programs focused on winning the war on drugs and they are losing. [15]

Endnotes

[1] “200,000 Drug Users in the United States.” 1915.New York Times (1857-1922), Aug 29, 12. 

[2] Billy Briggs, “FRONT LINE MEXICO,” Sunday Mail, October 6, 2013, from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1439564475?accountid=14902 (accessed January 20, 2017).

[3]  Isralowitz, Richard. 2002. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

[4]Isralowitz, Richard. 2002. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

[5]Isralowitz, Richard. 2002. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

[6] Isralowitz, Richard. 2002. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

[7] María Celia Toro,  Mexico’s ‘war’ on Drugs : Causes and Consequences, (Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers,1995)

[8]María Celia Toro,  Mexico’s ‘war’ on Drugs : Causes and Consequences, (Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers,1995))

[9] Craig, Richard. “Operation Condor: Mexico’s Antidrug Campaign Enters a New Era.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 22, no. 3 (1980): 345-63. doi:10.2307/165493

[10] JAMES M. “Earlier Efforts and Errors in War on Drugs.” New York Times, Jan 06, 1973, 1.

[11] Craig, Richard. “Operation Condor: Mexico’s Antidrug Campaign Enters a New Era.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 22, no. 3 (1980): 345-63. doi:10.2307/165493

[12] Craig, Richard. “Operation Condor: Mexico’s Antidrug Campaign Enters a New Era.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 22, no. 3 (1980): 345-63. doi:10.2307/165493

[13] Felix Belair, “Drug Drive Opens At Mexico Border”, New York Times,  September 22 1969, 1.

[14] Billy Briggs, “FRONT LINE MEXICO,” Sunday Mail, October 6, 2013, from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1439564475?accountid=14902 (accessed January 20, 2017).

[15] Payan, Tony, Staudt, Kathleen, and Kruszewski, Z. Anthony, eds. 2013. A War that Can’t Be Won : Binational Perspectives on the War on Drugs. Tucson, US: University of Arizona Press.

 

 

 

Illustrations

Figure 1. Time-line showing drug control policies set in place in a 160 year time frame. http://visual.ly/40-years-war-drugs

Figure 2. Mexican Soldiers Burn Largest Marijuana Field Discovered in Mexico. http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/mexico-marijuana-farm-7-15-11-1.jpg

Figure 3: Drug Cartels Areas of Influence in Mexico.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Mexican_drug_cartels_2008.jpg/240px-Mexican_drug_cartels_2008.jpg 

 

Geographic Focus: Mexico, U.S.A

Search Terms: Mexic* AND drug*, Mexic* drug trade, drug* Latin America, heroin in Mexico, Mexica* Cocaine, drug war, Marijuana U.S. Popularity, U.S. Drug Timeline, Foriegn Relation* AND drug*, drug* AND 1960’s, Mexic* drug cartel*

Primary Source Data Base: New York Times

Primary Source Date Limiter: 1900-1979

Historical Research Questions: How did the usage of drugs in America impact the increase in drug related crimes in mexico? What did the Mexican Government do to try and stop the increase in Crime, did it help? How did the drug crime get so out of hand in Mexico? What did the U.S. do to help?

HIV/AIDS: The foundation of well-being in South African Children

Download PDF

HIV/Aids is an extremely deadly disease, which is currently incurable. This disease is especially interesting as it is relatively new and there has been copious amounts of research since it was identified around 1980.[1] Although this disease is new, it has been the source for many deaths, especially in South Africa, which has the highest amount of people who are HIV positive.[2] According to Quarraisha Abdool Karim, from the Medical Research Council, South Africa has been given many tools to fight the epidemic, but they are not equipped to fight the complexity of the disease.[3] As a result of this, many people in South Africa have contracted HIV/Aids and have ultimately been left dead from the disease, leaving their families and children. As a result of this, it is safe to conclude that the HIV/Aids epidemic in South Africa has been the main source of leaving so many children orphaned in the specific country, which will ultimately lead to children with worsened well-being.

 

Figure 1: Aids in Eastern and Southern Africa, 2016.

It is apparent that South Africa has been one of the most effected countries by the HIV/Aids epidemic. Although the country is only home to about 6% of our population, it accounts for over 50% of the amount of people living with HIV in the world.[4] According to a UN report in 2007, South Africa officially became the country with the highest number of people infected with either HIV or Aids.[5] The HIV/Aids epidemic within South Africa is evident. Former South African President, Nelson Mandela, stated on a Johannesburg Sunday Times interview that the HIV/Aids epidemic is, “a war, it has killed more than people than has been the case in all previous wars, we must not continue to be debating, to be arguing, when people are dying and I have no doubt that we have a reasonable and intelligent government, and that if we intensify this debate inside, that we will be able to resolve it.”[6] The HIV/Aids epidemic is real in South Africa. It has been made apparent by Nelson Mandela that it is killing many people in the region and they are not fully equipped to be fighting the disease. That being said, children are being left homeless from this epidemic.

 

It is important to note the origin of HIV/Aids to build an understanding of the complex epidemic. The first case of HIV is difficult to track down because the disease started to infect people in central Africa, where health care was not readily available. Though, the earliest HIV positive samples were taken in 1959 from a man who was living in the Congo.[7] These samples provide many clues to how HIV started. After extensive research, in 1999 a strain, labeled SIV, was found in chimpanzees. This strain is almost identical to what HIV looks like in humans.[8] As a result of this finding, it is evident that at some point in history SIV was transferred from chimps to humans. From the sample taken in 1959, scientists were able to conduct extensive research and they found that the transfer of SIV to HIV happened in 1920 in the Congo.[9] This transmission was solely as a result of hunters eating the chimpanzees and the chimps blood getting inside the human bodies during the process of hunting.[10] Humans would normally be immune to SIV, but in a select few cases the strain adapted and became HIV in humans.[11] The history of HIV/Aids is very complicated and has required a lot of research. This shows that the virus is very intricate and because of this, many people were able to get infected. The infected people would ultimately die due to the incurable disease, which would lead them to leaving their children in orphanages ruining the child’s well-being.

 

It is evident that the transfer of the HIV virus from chimpanzees to humans occurred in central Africa, though, it is important to note how this virus then spread to South Africa. Kinshasa, the origin of HIV, had an abundance of modernized transportation. This included, but was not limited to, roads, railways, and rivers.[12] The modernized transportation allowed for people to travel much easier and therefore increase the opportunity for HIV to be spread. Though, these transformation systems did not flow towards the Northern and Eastern part of Africa, therefore fewer cases of HIV were found in these regions.[13] This shows that the transportation had an enormous effect on the spread of HIV in South Africa. In addition to transportation playing a role in the spread of HIV from the Congo to South Africa, Kinshasa had a relatively big population of sex trade at the beginning of the spread of HIV.[14] The sex trade allowed for this sexually transmitted disease to travel quickly across Africa. In addition, a New York Times article published in 1954 stated that there was an abundance of illegal immigrants flocking to South Africa at the time.[15] We can conclude that through the timeline of HIV/Aids transmittance that the influx of illegal immigrants flocking to South Africa played a major role in the movement of the disease from central Africa. Overall, as a result of easy transportation systems, people were able to travel to South Africa and transmit the HIV virus onto other hosts. This ultimately allowed for many people in South Africa to be infected with HIV, which would eventually lead to many children residing in orphanages specifically in South Africa.

 

Figure 3. Growth of HIV in South Africa

Transportation is not the main cause of the HIV/Aids epidemic in South Africa, though. It is apparent that the HIV/Aids epidemic today is driven by the lack of drugs available in South Africa. Health Care in Africa is sparse, especially in the southern part of the continent. This is problematic as there is an ongoing AIDS crisis within the country. About thirty years ago, there at least eight hundred people a day dying of HIV in South Africa.[16] To counteract this epidemic, South Africa needed access to medicines fast. The problem that arose was the expense of the treatments were much too expensive for an impoverished country. Since then, cheaper drugs have been produced to lengthen the life of the host living with HIV/Aids. Though, these drugs are quickly selling out and are still simply too expensive for the patients. Although UNICEF had already stated their roots in South Africa with helping to defeat Malaria and tuberculosis, the aids epidemic was too large for them.[17] A New York Times article was published in 1962, which stated that UNICEF was equipped with nutrition and disease-control, but it was not enough to stop the HIV/Aids epidemic.[18] It is evident that the health care industry in South Africa is not fully equipped to withstand the severity of the HIV/Aids epidemic. Through this, HIV/Aids has been allowed to spread to many people and infect them, ultimately leading them dead. This has left many children in South Africa homeless and they have to count on orphanages to give them the proper tools to grow up healthfully. The truth is that orphanages in South Africa cannot keep up with the amount of children they have to take care of which ultimately leaves children with worsened well-being. Overall, it is evident that the HIV/Aids epidemic is the foundation for the well-being of children in South Africa.

 

Figure 2. Orphaned Children from HIV/Aids

The Aids epidemic in South Africa is leaving many people dead, and is ultimately leaving many children orphaned. According to UNICEF, there are about 3.7 million children that are orphaned in South Africa and about half of them are as a result of losing their parents and care-takers to HIV/Aids.[19] This being said, it is evident that the growth of orphaned children is the greatest repercussion of the HIV/Aids epidemic.[20] It is said that about 1,400,000 children are orphaned as a result of Aids in South Africa, making it the highest amount in the world.[21] Being an orphan in South Africa is unyielding, since there are so many children in the orphanages as a result of HIV/Aids, there is not enough material to properly take care of all the children. As a result of the HIV/Aids epidemic, children are lacking proper health, housing, safety and health.[22] As well as not receiving the proper care and living conditions through the orphanages, the children have to deal with the terrible amount of grief they are left with from losing their parents to HIV/Aids.[23] The children who are left orphan as a result of aids are known as “AIDS orphans” which is incredibly undermining to them.[24] The HIV/Aids epidemic leaves many children in South Africa as orphans. During the time in the orphanage, the children do not have access to many things that will allow them to grow up in a healthy environment. Therefore, they will not have the same opportunities as other children who did not lose their parents to HIV/Aids. Overall, it is evident that HIV/Aids is the main cause for leaving children orphaned in South Africa and allowing for children to have the greatest opportunities.

 

“Hope Amidst Despair,” written by Susanna Grannis starts the conversation about the disparity of the children in South Africa affected by the HIV/Aids epidemic. This book contains a testimony by Beatrice, who is a 16-year-old orphan with her two siblings as a result of HIV/aids. Her testimony shows the horror of losing parents to HIV/aids. Her physical and mental well-being were worsened as a result of the epidemic. This shows how HIV/Aids is the main foundation of the well-being of children in South Africa. The epidemic allowed for many people to die, which left children orphaned, which ultimately worsened their well-being. Beatrice states:

My life has been completely affected because I lost my parents. And I couldn’t do what I was doing before they died. My mother died a long time ago, maybe more than ten years and my dad died three years ago. I was about six when my mother died. My biggest need is to be able to continue my studied as well as getting something to eat. I can’t really tell how we manage to survive because its complicated.[25]

 

Overall, the effects of the HIV/Aids epidemic in South Africa is real and it is intricate. There are many factors that have played a role in allowing the disease to become an epidemic in South Africa. These include, but are not limited to, the transmittance of HIV from chimpanzees, the transportation leading into South Africa, and the worsened healthcare system. The epidemic then lead to many people dying and ultimately leaving children as orphans. While being raised in these orphanages, children are not getting the access to the proper materials to allow them to live a healthy life. Therefore, it is evident that the HIV/Aids epidemic in South Africa is the main reason for the worsened well-being of children.

Endnotes

[1]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.” AVERT. January 11, 2017. Accessed April 28, 2017. https://www.avert.org/professionals/history-  hiv-aids/origin.

[2]”Orphans and vulnerable children.” UNICEF South Africa . Accessed April 28, 2017. https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/protection_6631.html.

[3]”But Government Policy on Aids, the ‘Silent Killer’, is Disastrous.” 1999. Africa News Service, Jul 16, 1999. https://search.proquest.com/docview/449158169?accountid=14902.

[4]”HIV and AIDS in East and Southern Africa regional overview.” AVERT. April 24, 2017. Accessed April 28, 2017. https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/sub-saharan-africa/overview.

[5]”HIV/Aids in South Africa.” South African History Online. March 21, 2011. Accessed April 28, 2017. http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/hivaids-south-africa.

[6]”Mandela urges action on Aids.” BBC News, February 17, 2002. Accessed April 28, 2017. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1825756.stm.

[7]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[8]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[9]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[10]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[11]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[12]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[13]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[14]”Origin of HIV & AIDS.”

[15]”NEGROES FLOCKING INTO SOUTH AFRICA.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Feb 22, 6. https://search.proquest.com/docview/113142277?accountid=14902.

[16]”The High Price of Aids Denialism in SA.” 2016.The Pretoria News, Jul 20, 10. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1805352927?accountid=14902.

[17]Gertrude Samuels. “Now, Succor for Africa’s Children.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Feb 18, 1962. https://search.proquest.com/docview/115696720?accountid=14902.

[18]Samuels, “Now, Succor for Africa’s Children.”

[19]”Orphans and vulnerable children.”

[20]”HIV/Aids in South Africa.”

[21]”HIV/Aids in South Africa.”

[22]Grannis, Susanna W. “Hope Amidst Despair.” London: Pluto Press, 2011. Accessed April 28, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, 9.

[23]”Hope Amidst Despair,” 9.

[24]”Hope Amidst Despair,” 1.

[25]”Hope Amidst Despair,” 9.

Illustrations

Figure 1. Eastern and Southern Africa, 2016, https://www.avert.org/sites/default/files/styles/responsive_articlecustom_user_desktop_1x/public/Eastern%20and%20Southern%20Africa_23August2016.jpg?itok=6sJmCVa5&timestamp=1493036414

Figure 2. Africa: Rescuing Children Orphaned By War and HIV/AIDS, https://www.chrf.org/orphan-africa.php

Figure 3. HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa, http://chora.virtualave.net/hiv.html

Israel and Palestine Conflict – Final Paper

Download PDF

Israel and Palestine Conflict

On July of 2014, Muhammad Wasqas writes about the continuing conflict between the two countries, Pakistan and Israel. Apparently Israel had something to do with attacks in the Gaza Strip, an area that is owned by Pakistan. This not only anger them but they are fed so up that they continue to express their anger through the use of social media to show how horrible the country, Israel, is to them. The newspaper article also says that Pakistan “does not recognize the existence of Israel as a state” [1]. It seems that Pakistan wants to retaliate and fight back so that Israel can pay for their crimes but unfortunately for them they can’t because of certain foreign policy. Another reason is that if they were to do something about it, it would complicate their relationship with the U.S. so fighting back wouldn’t be the smart move. Pakistan is in a tough corner but they plan on staying peaceful for the sake of their country in the future. The middle east is home of the Arabian people and history has shown the problems that they have encounter through the course of time. Specifically the area in between Jordan and Egypt. The Palestine people are apparently fed up with the Israel people because of all the danger and conflicts that they brought to the country. Palestine and Israel have been at each others’ throats to this very day but this is not because of no reason. In this paper I will prove how World War II is one of the main reason why these two countries are in conflict with one another and how it impacts the world today.

It is fair to share the history on what happened before there were problems. Adolf Hitler caused many Jewish people’s death just because of ridiculous beliefs and accusations brought upon their community. In the book Mein Kampf, he states that “one ought to realize that….Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ carriers, in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this part” [7]. It is a nightmare to know that people actually believed in this that cause mass extinction to many innocent lives back then.

Figure 1: Jews being selected by Nazis. Sending them to gas chambers

Fast forward to 1945, World War II was ending and the Germans had finally surrender and the terror of Nazis had ended. With all the Jewish men and women and their kids free from what seem to be an nightmare that wouldn’t end; they needed a place to go to. They decided to set their eyes to small areas in the country of Palestine and call it Israel. They believed that Israel will now be “the symbol of survival of Judaism and Jewry” [3]. The country of Palestine had no problem with them having some territory but the Jews didn’t like that it was so small and so they decided to look for more territories. Zionism played a huge role into this because the Jews created this movement so they can expand their culture and land [3]. This is where things get ugly and conflict starts to arise.

With the search for new territory to expand the small country of Israel, they basically had no where to go. The only logical country to expand from was Palestine. They had a bigger country compared to Israel and the people of Palestine did not expect that a mass number of Jews would emigrate over to Palestine and this is what made many people mad. The Jewish people could deny that it wasn’t their intention to take over the country of Palestine but before the October War, a man named Yehoshofat Harkabi revealed the truth behind the take over of Palestine. He stated that “because we took the land, this gives us the image of being bad, of being aggressive. The Jews always considered that the land belonged to them, but in fact it belonged to the Arabs….But our attachment to this land is too powerful. The big problem, then is not to start at the beginning but to find out where do we go from here?” [3]. The United States is allied with Israel and believed that the Arabian people are just attacking Israel because they can but the real victim here is the people of Palestine and their country is getting taken over by the Jews.

Figure 2: Palestine’s loss of land to Israel

The increase of land and territory is not the only reason why Israel is taking over Palestine. There are some religious aspects that tie into this conflict. Judaism and bitter religious rivalries of the Arab population have been fighting against each other because of disagreements on certain views [4]. There are also problems with both countries politics and economics because of corruption so with that being said, nothing was getting fixed. The tension between Palestine and Israel has increased throughout the years and with nothing being solved. There were many wars that happened during the fight for territory between the Arabian nations but the one war that stands out the most would be the October war in 1973.

The emigration of Israel to Palestine was getting out of hand that Israel crossed the line and took territories from other near by countries so something had to be done to keep Israel in check. David R. Morse writes about the history of this war and the affects it had on all countries that were involved. This war was also known as the Yom Kippur war because Yom Kippur is known as a holy day for Judaism and a surprise attack from Arabian coalition on that day set everything off [5]. The war included Egypt and Syria and they planned to attack Israel in order to retrieve territory that Israel took from them. Many other Arab nations joined in the war to fight Israel but the United States supported Israel because they were allied with them before this whole conflict started [5]. The war was brutal and many people died. The country that had the most casualties from this war would be Israel because they were not prepared for this war. The help of the United States definitely made an impact because Israel ended up winning in April 1974. [5].

Israel and Palestine conflict was talked about in a newspaper article that dates back to March 17, 1978. In the article they talk about the invasion from Israel to the Middle East “to move in against the Palestinian guerrillas” [6]. When reading this, the author was writing to an audience that may know little about what’s happening overseas between these two’s countries, Israel and Palestine, or people with a neutral opinion because he or she is stating that Israel was wrong to invade them but then again Israel says that they “had a right to strike back with blood for blood” [6]. It is hard to choose a side between them because they both attacked each other through war and violence so no one is right but the purpose of this was to show that Israel isn’t the “bad guy” in this conflict.

Figure 3: Military movement/battles during the Yom Kippur War

This article was written in 1978, so this was years after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 but even then it shows that there is still a problem going on with these two countries. The author could’ve been a middle-class working white male that had some knowledge on the war between these two countries. So he is writing to the United States of America who have no idea what’s going on overseas. An assumption that can be made from this article is that Israel almost got caught for being an evil country with the invasion but hides this claim by saying it was due to “self-defense”, knowing that it will make them look less bad across the world.

It would seem that the conflict has been going on for so long that people have just given up on them but this is not true. There have been many times that the United Nations and United States tried to negotiate with Arab and Jewish people so that they can find peace among one another. But unfortunately, “like a so-called perfect storm in which everything that possibly can go wrong does, everything that could make a conflict more difficult to resolved exists in the Israel and Palestine conflict” [8]. Kuriansky has a great point, because if these two countries do not find a way to come to terms and at least share the land then I’m afraid that this conflict will not end any time soon, and the world will continue to deal with many innocent lives dying in the cross-fire.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

End notes

[1] Muhammad Wasqas, “Pakistan and Arab-Israel conflict”, Arab News, July 17, 2014, https://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:6117/docview/1545709230?accountid=14902 (accessed January 25, 2017).

[2] Arab News, July 17, 2014.

[3] Gendzier, I., Palestine and Israel: The Binational Idea. Journal of Palestine Studies, (1975), 4(2), 12-35. doi:10.2307/2535835 (Accessed March 20, 2017).

[4] Rowley, C., & Webb, M. (2007). Israel and Palestine: The Slow Road to Peace or the Fast Track to Mutual Annihilation? Public Choice, 132(1/2), 7-26. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27698124 (Accessed March 20, 2017).

[5] David R. Morse, Kissinger and the Yom Kippur War, (McFarland, June 2015), pp. 15-65.

[6] “Israel goes too far,” The Globe and Mail, March 17, 1978, https://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:6117/docview/387091029?accountid=14902 (Accessed February 5, 2017).

[7] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (My Struggle). Eher Verlag: Germany, 1925, pp. 49-54.

[8] Judith Kuriansky, Terror in the Holy Land: inside the anguish of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Wesport, Conn: Praeger, 2006.

Illustrations

Figure 1. Picture of Nazis selecting Jews to die by the gas chambers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#/media/File:Selection_Birkenau_ramp.jpg

Figure 2. Map that shows how much land that Palestine loss to Israel, http://ifamericaknew.org/history/

Figure 3. Map that shows the military movement during the Yom Kippur War, http://www.cfoicheartland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Map-of-Yom-Kippur-War.jpg 

Pakistan’s Fight Against Polio (Final Project)

Download PDF

Poliomyelitis is an infectious virus disease that causes paralysis, temporarily or permanently, in result of the central nervous system being altered. This disease has always been considered a major public health issue, and the span of its existence has been just as long as the existence of the human society. In 1894, there was the first realization in the U.S. of what Polio truly consisted of, but not until 1908 did we know that it was from a virus. In 1916, there was an extensive outbreak that killed many and left people paralyzed as well [1]. As this virus was spreading throughout the world, more and more people were becoming affected by it. But, eventually there came a vaccine that was developed to defeat this virus and it started to spread throughout the world, ending some of these dangerous outbreaks. “In 1985 Rotary International became a key player in the fight against polio with the establishment of its PolioPlus program. Worldwide, Rotarians have donated more than $1.2 billion. Coupled with matching dollars from the Bill Gates Foundation, those dollars have purchased vaccines for the children of the world (each dose of vaccine costs 60 cents), kits for delivering the vaccines, and support for volunteers who give out the vaccine” [2]. Because of this, vaccines have been distributed throughout the world, eliminating polio in all countries but two. The two countries where polio is still endemic, is Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan is the country most affected with more high risk disease areas, and it is considered to be the main reason for Afghanistan still affected because of cross-border transmission. Currently, there are people who are still fighting to defeat the high risk disease areas in Pakistan, and with time they believe that it will soon come to an end and these two countries will no longer be considered locations where polio is still endemic.

In result of the polio outbreak in 1916, people around the world had decided that something had to be done in order to eradicate this disease. In order to do this, there must be enough money and willing people to go through the journey. In countries throughout the world, polio has been claimed “defeated”. This took billions of money, help from others and complete dedication and effort from everyone involved. To this day, every single country has achieved the goal of eradicating polio, not including two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan, who still deal with this issue. Afghanistan’s problems seem to be because of the uncontrolled polio outbreak that is coming from Pakistan. Therefore, the biggest remaining problem would be Pakistan. In order to be truly dedicated to the elimination of a virus as horrific as polio, large expenses and willingness to help are required. Pakistan’s poverty and its government negligence are the leading causes as to why they still consider the virus polio endemic in their country, and as time goes on, this country, and even Afghanistan, is affected in an extremely negative way.

Figure 1: PolioPlus Program, 2000

Going back to 1894, there were 132 cases in Vermont located in the United States. The form of polio at this time was very generalized and acute, which meant that it was not as big of an effect on the people who were infected [3]. With time, the virus seemed to subside and there were no large outbreaks for an extended chunk of history. In 1916, more outbreaks of polio started to pick up again, and at this time the polio virus was considered endemic throughout the world. In these outbreaks, the virus of polio seemed to be in a different form. This form of the virus was much more vigorous and it was leaving people either dead or paralyzed and in pain [4]. With the implementation of the PolioPlus program spreading, this horrible form of polio was starting to be eliminated due to the vaccine that they had created. Figure 1 shows the type of vaccines they have been using, and it also shows the dedication of people who were trying to help eradicate polio. These vaccines were distributed throughout the world to countries who were willing to stop the problem and put forth some money to fund the treatments. Pakistan was one country who was not willing to put forth funds, and in result of this, the polio virus continued to spread and affect many more people, including the people in the neighboring country of Afghanistan [5]. As time goes on, the lack and different usages of money seem to be one of the leading causes for polio still remaining as a problem in Pakistan.

From around the 1920’s to the 1930’s, Pakistan was dealing with some problems including their leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and his views on Muslim rights versus the Hindu majority. This seemed to be an ongoing conflict that added to some problems in the government and how they were ran [6]. In 1935, a large earthquake in Quetta killed at least 40,000 people in addition to the other people who were also dying for different reasons, like polio [7]. Pakistan then obtained their independence in 1947, and around this time they were struggling with their development as a country. They possessed very little industrial or power production, and their economy and government was lacking. With time, the country had problems developing and fixing some of these issues [8]. Because of this continuing struggle as a country, they were unable to correctly run a successful economy and the government was consumed with other situations that they considered more important.

In 1956, the surgeon general of the United States Public Health Service had issued multiple statements that were promoting the vaccines created for the polio virus. These vaccines were the prime source to defeating the virus and it was produced to provide a very high level of protection against the specific paralysis form of the polio virus. In this time, it was a very alarming concern for the amount of people affected by this form of the virus, so the vaccine was spreading throughout the world very quickly to stop the problem [9]. Around the same time of these vaccination instances, there were also plans being made from the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States that related to the production of Atomic Power. The industry of creating this electric power was becoming very successful quickly and because of this, the United Kingdom was going to use their experience to begin making arrangements to train other places around the world with how to use and produce this power. The arrangements for training had already been made with India and Pakistan [10]. Instead of placing money towards the vaccines to help prevent people from dying of the advanced polio virus, Pakistan’s government was putting their funds towards learning how to create and use atomic power.

Figure 2: Children With Polio, 1988

As Pakistan continued to increase in their government spendings on the military over the next few years, they decided to cut any money towards retrieving free vaccinations and giving them out. If a person was in need of a vaccination, they would have to pay for one on their own, and not many people in Pakistan were able to afford that. In 1971, as some parts of the world were affected by polio, the country in the most danger, Pakistan, seemed to be in trouble. A reporter, Malcolm W. Browne, wrote in The New York Times, on June 24, 1971, discussing the terrifying situation Pakistan was in. The rest of the world was watching and reading as Pakistan was expecting many deaths to come in result of the government restricting their public health services and not spending money to import drugs to try and help the people in need [11]. The article explained how the Pakistan Medical Association was asking their government to import the polio vaccine immediately from one of two places, the Soviet Union or Canada, to stop this expected epidemic. Many cases of polio had been brought to their local hospital in Karachi, one of their highest affected areas, and no free vaccinations were available to help any patients [12]. During this time, there had been a huge push throughout the world for parents to get their children vaccinated, and in Pakistan most families were not able to afford the vaccinations they need, while the rest of the world was able to. This was a little bit before the Rotary International started to become a huge part in the fight against polio. Because of Pakistan’s poverty, their ability to develop and improve as a whole was an extremely difficult task. With their inability to defeat poverty, polio continued to be a never-ending problem that should have been stopped just as easily as other places were able to stop it. Browne included a quote from a health worker in Karachi, Pakistan, “We could do more with more money, but when a choice must be made between military priorities and public health we often end up with little or nothing” [13]. The people of Pakistan were struggling to survive, and as the majority of the people there didn’t have enough money to help themselves, the government wasn’t doing very much for them either. Figure 2 shows the effects of polio on the children of Pakistan, the ones who had survived that is.

In the midst of Pakistan’s expectation of a large increase of disease in 1971, the Medical Association sent in a statement to the government to urge them to help. In Malcolm Brown’s report on June 24th, he summarized what the Medical Association said, “Yesterday the Pakistan Medical Association sent a telegram to the government in Islamabad urging that polio vaccine be imported immediately from the Soviet Union or Canada to curb an unexpected epidemic in Karachi. The telegram said that a large number of polio cases had been brought to Karachi hospitals in the last few days and it noted that no free vaccine was available” [14]. Once Pakistan’s Medical Association received news that the government claimed they cannot help, they then went on to ask other countries for help and they were in hopes that people would send money or free vaccinations to help them control the virus [15]. This event was a “wake-up call” to the rest of the world, and people started to truly realize that these poor citizens of Pakistan, and even Afghanistan areas too, were in danger and needed some help.

Figure 3: Signing Ceremony, 2016

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative was begun by Pakistan because of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 1970’s. After this, Pakistan had vaccinated only 2 percent of the population to fight against polio [16]. As the foundation continued to vaccinate the population, there started to be a slight decrease in the cases of polio found in Pakistan. From 1980 to 2011, there was an expectancy to be a very large decrease in the outbreaks. However, it took until the year 2000 for there to be a significant drop in the amount of cases they were seeing of polio. Over time, the amount of outbreaks continued to fluctuate and it was a constant battle against this virus [17]. In 2011, Japan had provided a large loan to Pakistan in efforts to eliminate polio because there was a very high concern based off of the rising amounts of people who were still affected. The disease was affecting the whole world, not just Pakistan [18]. In 2013, there had been a major decrease in outbreaks, and there were continuous discussions on implementing new policies to eradicate this disease for good [19]. On May 20, 2016, a press release was posted stating that Japan had signed another loan agreement with Pakistan to partner with them and the Gates Foundation and help eradicate the polio virus in their country. This loan was for the second phase of the Polio Eradication Project and it is supporting the production of more polio vaccines and any other instances that could help Pakistan stop this virus [20]. Figure 3 shows the signing ceremony where Japan is offering another loan to Pakistan. Today, the problem of the polio virus is still existent in Pakistan, however with more time to come, there are hopes that the polio virus will officially be eradicated with continued efforts.

The poverty and government shortcomings of Pakistan were, and still are, the leading causes as to why polio is still considered endemic in their country. The history of their inability to obtain the proper vaccines and resources that were recommended throughout the world has shown the extent of how money has affected their success. Along with that, the priorities of the government involving military and social standings have also advanced the struggle of the people living in their country. Not only has the country of Pakistan been affected, but Afghanistan as well. If polio is not eradicated soon in these two countries, there may be some horrible consequences in the near future involving the overall health of the world and conflicts produced because of it.

 

[1]: Rae LaMarche, “Polio is on the Run, But the Fight Isn’t Over,” The Register-Guard, October 8, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/newsstand/docview/1750089607/4A9B388CAAB94679PQ/1?accountid=14902 (accessed February 3, 2017).

[2]: The Register-Guard, October 8, 2015.

[3]: Nik Erik Gilhus, Post-Polio Syndrome (Bergen, Norway: Department of Clinical Medicine/Neurology, 2010), 212-214. http://searchit.libraries.wsu.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=viewOnlineTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=TN_wilbooks10.1002%2f9781444328394.ch18&indx=5&recIds=TN_wilbooks10.1002%2f9781444328394.ch18&recIdxs=4&elementId=4&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=4&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%28P%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU%29%2Cscope%3A%28E-WSU%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU_CDM1%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU_CDM3%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU_CDM4%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU_CDM5%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU_CDM6%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU_CDM%29%2Cscope%3A%28WSU_CDM2%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&tb=t&mode=Basic&vid=WSU&srt=rank&tab=default_tab&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=Post-Polio%20Syndrome%20&dstmp=1493145604911

[4]: Rae LaMarche, “Polio is on the Run, But the Fight Isn’t Over,” The Register-Guard, October 8, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/newsstand/docview/1750089607/4A9B388CAAB94679PQ/1?accountid=14902 (accessed February 3, 2017).

[5]: Malcolm W. Browne, “Big Rise in Pakistani Disease Toll Feared,” The New York Times, June 24, 1971, http://search.proquest.com/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/119317724/67B54263FF60419APQ/2?accountid=14902 (accessed February 3, 2017).

[6]: David Lelyveld, “Prelude to Partition: The Indian Muslims and the Imperial System of Control”, The American Historical Review, 89, 2 (April 1984), 505-506.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1862696.pdf

[7]: “The Quetta Earthquake”, Nature, 135, (June 1935), 986. https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v135/n3424/pdf/135986a0.pdf

[8]: Jerome B. Cohen, “Economic Development in Pakistan”, Land Economics: A Quarterly Journal of Planning, Housing and Public Utilities, 29, 1 (February 1953), 1-12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3144280.pdf

[9]: American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Plans for Atomic Power,” Science, 123, 3198 (April, 1956), 625. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1751695.pdf

[10]: Science, 123, 3198 (April, 1956), 625.

[11]: Malcolm W. Browne, “Big Rise in Pakistani Disease Toll Feared,” The New York Times, June 24, 1971, http://search.proquest.com/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/119317724/67B54263FF60419APQ/2?accountid=14902 (accessed February 3, 2017).

[12]: The New York Times, June 24, 1971.

[13]: The New York Times, June 24, 1971.

[14]: The New York Times, June 24, 1971.

[15]: The New York Times, June 24, 1971.

[16]: Tariq Khan, “Hurdles to the Global Antipolio Campaign in Pakistan: An Outline of the Current Status and Future Prospects to Achieve a Polio Free World,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 67, 8 (August, 2013), 696-702.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43281599.pdf

[17]: Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 67, 8 (August, 2013), 696-702.

[18]: Sophie Arie, “Japan Lends Cash to Help Curb Rising Incidence of Polio in Pakistan,” British Medical Journal 343, 7821 (September, 2011): 443. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23052001.pdf

[19]: Tariq Khan, “Hurdles to the Global Antipolio Campaign in Pakistan: An Outline of the Current Status and Future Prospects to Achieve a Polio Free World,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 67, 8 (August, 2013), 696-702.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43281599.pdf

[20]: “Signing of Japanese ODA Loan Agreement with Pakistan: Partnering with the Gates Foundation Toward Eradicating Polio,” Japan International Cooperation Agency, May 20, 2016. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/news/press/2016/160520_01.html

 

Illustrations:

Figure 1. PolioPlus Program, 2000, http://www.rotary.org.ua/en/about-rotary/polioplus-program.html

Figure 2. Children with Polio, Global Polio Eradication Initiative, 1988, http://polioeradication.org/polio-today/history-of-polio/

Figure 3. Signing Ceremony, 2016, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/news/press/2016/160520_01.html

 

Geographic Focus: Pakistan (may also include Afghanistan, United States, Soviet Union, or Canada).

Search Terms: Polio*, Pakistan, Afghanistan, vaccine*, virus*, disease*, poverty, government*, development*

RCI Course Themes: Humans and the Environment, because as this virus has spread, we as humans over time have had to figure out how to defeat it and slowly get rid of it throughout the world.

Primary Source Database: Historical New York Times

Primary Source Search Date Limiter: before 1980. The years 1916-1971 seem to be very important.

Historical Research Questions:

  1. Why was Karachi’s Government so against having free vaccinations imported to them after seeing their history of many deaths in result of the disease polio?
  2. In 1985, Rotary International started a huge fight against polio throughout the world, did they do anything for Pakistan? If so, did Pakistan’s government prevent them from helping? Because this disease is still affecting people there today.

Final Project (Capitalism vs. Communism)

Download PDF

The effect that Capitalism and Communism had on third world countries during the cold war were shifting of political backgrounds, unneeded wars fought on foreign soil and led to many movements of independence movements throughout the Cold War. After World War II, the two big powerhouse countries were the United States and Soviet Russia. The ideas between these two countries were completely opposite of each other and eventually everything became a competition. The people who supported capitalism were known as the first world, countries that supported communism were second world and the third world were countries that wanted their own independence. The colliding of capitalism and communism had lead to wars like the Vietnam War, Korean War and also when Russia invaded Afghanistan to try to convince them to join their side. This also lead to many revolutions too, but the third world countries truly are the ones who struggled since they were trying to develop their own economies and independence, while behind their shoulder there was multiple wars fought on their own lands.

There was a major influence of Russia communism in Cuba and that didn’t translate well with the United States being a capitalistic country. During the Cold War, Russia decided that Cuba was a good spot to have control over so that they could keep an eye on the United States to still if they were developing more nuclear bombs. Throughout the cold war, Cuba and US were not on the same page but wanted to try to make amends and have a better relationship and have the problems sort of thaw away. This has started to happen and the door has started to open to tourism and trade once again. It is a direct investment in the country to create stability, reform and prosperity.[1]  A way for the United States to possibly improve relations with Cuba would be to open up relations and increase tourism, trade, reform and could possibly become allies in the future. With the Diverse Ways of Thinking, Once the influence of communism and totalitarianism is complete wiped out of Cuba, which are the complete opposite ideals that the United States has. Then we can be able to create stability and a improvement of relations between the United States and Cuba.

The Economic systems and policies between United States and Russia were truly about the fight for capitalism or communism. With these two power house countries divided and the constant wear and tear it had on the multiple third world countries that couldn’t support themselves. [2] These economies helped the countries that were

Figure 1: Countries influenced by either Capitalism or   Communism (1950-1987)

involved because they had specific ideas that could only work in there countries economic structure. There was a study of radical influence throughout the culture and political climate of post World War II America to provide much rationale for the beginning of the cold war. [3] With the influence of radical behavior the U.S. really needed to push forward and continue to try to influence Capitalism as the best way to boost the economy and if the whole world thought the same then it would lead to the fall of Communism. Throughout the Cold War the United States definitely had a better economic system, people worked hard and if there was a linear distribution between the workers wages while communism lead to no incentive to work hard because everyone who wasn’t in the government or elites would all be paid the same and that was considerably really low wages. When people realized this was going on then they started a revolution, eventually the economy completely collapsed in Russia and then led to the fall of Communism. Figure 1 shows in blue the United States and its allies for Capitalism and in red for Soviet Union and its allies for Communism and also China is made up as yellow but supports the Communist regime.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of Soviet Russia was concerned with the third world countries and had sympathy for the countries. The third world was in desperate need, so Gorbachev influenced communism in some countries of the third world in order for them to develop their own economy and independence. [4] The third world countries that were convinced to become communist, are the ones that were undecided and ultimately thought that without an influence of some political and economic system that they wouldn’t be able to create independence for their own countries. Communism truly affected the whole world economically, politically and socially, people were truly scared that communism could end up ruling the whole world and they were actually colonizing countries in order for them to have more power. Russia was seen as the enemy and the things they were doing in order to convince these countries to join them were just morally wrong. While Gorbachev was the leader of Russia communism was truly working really well when he was initiated but he was the last leader of the Soviet Union before the economy collapsed and the repression of politics and the multiple riots and revolutions to truly put an end to communism.

The third world countries were known as the countries that had gained their independence but struggle to implement a government and an economic system in order to help create a stable country. Patel had talked about the origin and development of the third world and were heavily impacted on imperialism, capitalism and their peaceful fight to become more independent as a country.

Figure 2: Africa a third world country was trying to break free and become independent

[5] Typically the third world was very poor and technologically wasn’t advanced like the European countries and the United States. So in order for some of them to be able to support themselves as a country they needed some influence that could work for them. The influence that came out of most third world countries was communism because most of the them were surrounded by Russia. The spread of communism also affected United States inside their own country, true American individualism in its fight against communist dictatorship is the call for unswerving obedience of all patriotic Americans to the orders of the right-wing leaders. [6] Everybody was convinced that in every single part of the world that there was possibly major influence of communism tryin to spread in order for it to become the main political and economic system to use in the world. Figure 2 is describing that during the Cold War, third world countries like Africa were controlled and they no longer wanted to be and wanted independence with no influence of any powerful country. They struggled to create a economic platform in order for their country to thrive.

The rise of influence of socialism in Cuba really sparked in the Cuban Revolution in 1959, this revolution was the fight of Capitalism and communism in Cuba. The Cubans were tired of the impact the ideals that United States had forced on them. The leader of the revolution for Cuba was Fidel Castro who eventually became the Prime Minister of Cuba once the revolution had ended. From the New York Times newspaper, “The Socialism in Cuba” it states that, In making their revolution, the Cubans have opened a new road in the Western Hemisphere – Leftist, socialistic, totalitarian.[7] When the Cubans opened the influence of communism toward the Western Hemisphere it looked like the Soviet Union had the upper hand on the United States for the stance of location of the infamous Cold War. Before 1959, the Latin American countries had only one way to travel – the slow, uphill, sure way to our capitalistic, free enterprise system of economy, Cuba is now declaring that to achieve social justice is to be influenced by the ‘socialistic’ methods.[8] Fidel Castro influences a lot of Latin American countries to go against capitalism and go to communistic ideals, for the reason to have freedom against the United States but at that time they didn’t realize that technically the Russians just took America’s place of influence and will eventually lead to another revolution and a economic collapse. Renata Adler from Special to The New York Times brought up a good point about the advertisement of the Cuban revolution. She describes how the Cubans used propaganda to influence the revolution so identify over and over again that United States’ capitalism had a hold on Cuba and how they were controlling them and it was the time to break free and use the influence of socialism to lead them to a potential better future. [9] Figure 3 shows the aftermath of the result of Fidel Castro leading his revolution in order to become in control of Cuba. He’ll use communist and socialist ideals in order to stand alone to try to lead Cuba to a powerful region during the Cold War.

Figure 3: Fidel assumes power ousting the Batista, 1959

There was a newspaper that was published in 1961, by the New York Times that talked about the rise of socialism in Cuba. The world had found out about the influence of communism spread throughout the globe. In no time and was a very tense time in history that could lead to Nuclear War with just a click of a button. The assumptions that the United States had was that technically the Russians could keep an eye on us and set a location for a potential atomic bomb to launch at the east coast of America.[10] Another one was the Cuban revolution and how it could possibly lead to a revolt toward the United States to invade our country. The New York Times are just reporting what was going through the minds of the Cubans before and during the revolution, their class and race is definitely an upside compared to the people who the article is about. On the other hand the people who are mentioned in the newspaper article was Fidel Castro and some of President Kennedy, so in this instance their class was higher because they both were the leaders in their countries and had plenty of power to shift the ideals and the way their countries were run.

Third World countries like Cuba had a really hard time in developing their countries economy and is the main reason why the third world was swayed in either direction of capitalism or communism. They finally wanted to be independent and could be able to rely on themselves and feel entitled in order to run their countries. It was hard for the third world countries to achieve this because they were such poor countries, so some third world countries had to go to the influence of either capitalism or communism for an economic system. As for the countries that were allied with Unites States were known as the first world, supporters of communism and Soviet Russia was known as second world and lastly the countries that wanted to be independent were known as the third world countries. Most of the third world countries to become independent they needed to start revolutions in their countries in order to create a statement to prove people that they can’t be tied down anymore and fight to become their own leaders of their country. The countries that were influence to Capitalism were the ones to survive after the Cold War, while the fight for communism died in the early 1990’s and even though Soviet Union ultimately failed the other country used socialism as a starting point in order to try to make a much improved communist regime. This time in history is important to understand because with today’s conflict in the world is a regeneration of the Cold War with United States and European countries are still using capitalism and now North Korea, Russia, China fall under communism and are in support of radical terrorism in the middle east. We do not want to repeat the same mistakes as we did with the Cold War where there is a threat of nuclear warfare between United States and North Korea and the Middle East.

Endnotes

[1] Jauregui, Guillermo. “Commercial Relations between Cuba and the United States.” Washington State University. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 01 July 1936. Web. 20 Mar. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000271623618600129?related-urls=yes&legid=spann%3B186%2F1%2F188&legid=spann%3B186%2F1%2F188&cited-by=yes&

[2] George Dalton, Economic systems and society; capitalism, communism and the Third World. (Harmondsworth, Penguin Education, 1974). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5071481-economic-systems-and-society

[3] Diggins, John P. “Up from communism: Conservative odysseys in American intellectual history.” Washington State University. New York : Harper & Row, 1975. Web. 20 Mar. 2017. https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/diggins-communism-conservative-odysseys-american-intellectual-history

[4] Francis Fukuyama, Gorbachev and the Third World, (Foreign Affairs) Vol. 64, No. 4 (Spring, 1986), pp. 715-731

[5] Surendra J. Patel, The Age of the Third World, (Third World Quarterly) Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1983), pp. 58-71

[6] Schick, F. “Americanism Seminars and the Communist Challenge.” Washington State University. Western Political Quarterly, Vol.15(2), p.353 [Peer Reviewed Journal] , 01 June 1962. Web. 20 Mar. 2017. http://www.jstor.org/tc/accept?origin=/stable/pdf/445313.pdf

[7] The ‘Socialism’ of Cuba. (1961, May 02). New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/115272395?accountid=14902. https://search.proquest.com/docview/115272395/pageviewPDF/919A79AA37184F4DPQ/1?accountid=14902

[8] The ‘Socialism of Cuba. (1961, May 02)

[9] Renata Adler Special, to The New York Times. (1969, Feb 12). Propaganda fills Cuban newsreels. New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/118646884?accountid=14902. http://search.proquest.com/docview/118646884?accountid=14902&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

[10] Renata Adler, New York Times.

Geographic Focus: Russia, United States, Third World Countries, Cuba

Search Terms: Cuban Revolution, Communism, Capitalism, Cold War, histor*

Primary Source Database: Historical New York Times

Date Limiter: The fight for Capitalism or Communism (1950-1987)

Historical Research Questions: What was United States’ role of pushing Cuba away towards communist Soviet Union? How was the Third World affect by the influence of communism and Capitalism?

Illustrations

Figure 1. Countries influenced by either Capitalism or Communism, (1950-1987), http://image3.slideserve.com/5768163/communism-vs-capitalism-n.jpg

Figure 2. Africa a third world country was trying to break free and become independent, https://ceppes.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/2737587_f520.jpg

Figure 3. Fidel assumes power ousting the Batista, 1959, http://vanderbilthistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/cuban-revolution-6.jpg

 

RA: 4 Roots of Contemporary Issues: Americas Need for Speed (and other drugs) Creates Mexico’s War on Drugs

Download PDF

RA 1: Mexico and Drugs

Since the dawn of mankind marijuana, cocaine, opium, and various other drugs have been used to achieve a state of mind that we all know as ‘getting high’. Now even though drugs have always been ever present in society it was not until the 1960’s do we see a rise in drug culture. A culture that exploded in the 1980’s and has caused significant issues in the U.S. but more notably in Mexico due to the violence created by Mexican drug cartels.  A British frontline reporter who goes by the name Grillo has been living in Mexico and has been documenting the drug war for over twelve years. During his time in Mexico he has seen many violent acts performed by the infamous cartels. But, it was not until 2006 that he really noticed a huge increase the malevolent crimes committed by these influential gangs. The reason the cartels were created and have grown to such power in these past few decades is mainly due the huge amount of drugs that is consumed by the United States. Its no secret that in 2006 Mexico’s former president  Felipe Calderon declared a war on drugs in his country. But, as of today Mexico has lost that war and Mexico’s current President Enrique Pena Nieto along with the U.S., is trying to find a way to end the reign of drug cartels that doesn’t involve using a huge amount of military force. To him it is better to lightly take on the drug trade, rather than to take it head on, which he feels only fuels cartels’ violence.

RA 2:Latin America Drug Traffickers Escape Through Bribery

The New York Times sent reporters down to Latin America for two months to gather information on the logistics behind the drug trafficking scene that occurs mostly in what is called the ‘silver triangle’. During their time spent in Santa Cruz, Paraguay, and western Brazil reporters caught on to a trail of corruption. It became blatantly apparent that those who were busted for drugs were being let off the hook due to major officials being paid off. Gage provides evidence of this when he writes, “If drug traffickers can’t use political influence to stop investigations against them, they. . .have so much available cash, for example in Colombia judges sometimes compete to try major narcotics cases because of the potential payoffs involved.”[1] Due to these occurrences practically everyone in the drug trade is considered untouchable. Which creates quite a problem for those officials who are trying to stem the flow of heroin and cocaine into the United States, a problem that has been rising since the end of WWII. But, according to the attitudes of Latin American countries such as Peru, who Gage claims, “The Peruvian Government has no unified policy on coca. Many Ministers feel that cocaine is an American problem and not a Peruvian Responsibility.” [1] Although, unlike Peru, other counties have been working hard to rid their land of the insurmountable amount of coca crops being grown, a task that is proving to be redundant, for as fast as the crops are cut down twice as many are replanted. But, as said by police Capt. Theodoro Campo Gomez, “There are too many loopholes in our laws and not enough cooperation between countries,”[1] a factor that makes the stamping out the drug scene nearly impossible.

This is primary source is a news article published by The New York Times. The intended audience would be the American people. The purpose of this source is to inform readers the details behind the cocaine and opium scene in Latin America. The historical context would be in the mid-seventies, which was when the drug trafficking from Latin America to the United States was at the highest level anyone had seen during that era. It would be safe to assume that the writer, Nicolas Gage, is American and most likely of European descent and since he works for the U.S.’s most popular newspaper that he is financially well off, which compares considerably to the people of Latin America. For those who live in Latin America tend to have low incomes and generally considered a lower class of people.

RA 3: Title: While America Gets High Mexico Explodes Into a Scene of Drug Trade Induced Crime

Hook: Since the dawn of mankind marijuana, cocaine, opium, and various other drugs have been used to achieve a state of mind that we all know as ‘getting high’. Now, even though drugs have always been ever present in society, it was not until the 1960’s do we see a rise in drug culture. A culture that exploded in the 1980’s and has caused significant issues in the U.S. but more notably in Mexico due to the violence created by Mexican drug cartels.  A British frontline reporter who goes by the name Grillo has been living in Mexico and has been documenting the drug war for over twelve years. During his time in Mexico he has seen many violent acts performed by the infamous cartels. [1] But, it was not until 2006 that he really noticed a huge increase the malevolent crimes committed by these influential gangs. The reason the cartels were created and have grown to such power in these past few decades is mainly due the huge amount of drugs that is consumed by the United States. Its no secret that in 2006 Mexico’s former president, Felipe Calderon, declared a war on drugs in his country. But, as of today Mexico has lost that war. Mexico’s current President Enrique Pena Nieto along with the U.S., is trying to find a way to end the reign of drug cartels that doesn’t involve using a huge amount of military force. To him it is better to lightly take on the drug trade, rather than to take it head on, which he feels only fuels cartels’ violence. [2]

Thesis Statement: America’s demand for drugs from the 1930’s to the late 1970’s fueled Mexico’s drug issue to the point where “the war on drugs” became inevitable [3] [4]

Paragraph 3: A look back at the part drugs played in Mexico pre-1960’s era. [3]

Paragraph 4: How the usage of drugs significantly increased in America between 1960- 1970. How/what policies were set in place to control the usage spike. [4] [5]

Paragraph 5: How the crack down on drugs in America directly relates to the emergence of Mexican drug cartels and their increasing power. [7]

Paragraph 6: The New York Times sent reporters down to Latin America for two months to gather information on the logistics behind the drug trafficking scene that occurs mostly in what is called the ‘silver triangle’. During their time spent in Santa Cruz, Paraguay, and western Brazil reporters caught on to a trail of corruption. It became blatantly apparent that those who were busted for drugs were being let off the hook due to major officials being paid off. Gage provides evidence of this when he writes, “If drug traffickers can’t use political influence to stop investigations against them, they. . .have so much available cash, for example in Colombia judges sometimes compete to try major narcotics cases because of the potential payoffs involved.”[6] Due to these occurrences practically everyone in the drug trade is considered untouchable. Which creates quite a problem for those officials who are trying to stem the flow of heroin and cocaine into the United States, a problem that has been rising since the end of WWII. But, according to the attitudes of Latin American countries such as Peru, who Gage claims, “The Peruvian Government has no unified policy on coca. Many Ministers feel that cocaine is an American problem and not a Peruvian Responsibility.” [6] Although, unlike Peru, other counties have been working hard to rid their land of the insurmountable amount of coca crops being grown, a task that is proving to be redundant, for as fast as the crops are cut down twice as many are replanted. But, as said by police Capt. Theodoro Campo Gomez, “There are too many loopholes in our laws and not enough cooperation between countries,”[6] a factor that makes the stamping out the drug scene nearly impossible.

Paragraph 7: Further elaboration on how drug cartel violence escalated even further until it ultimately lead to the start of  the “War on Drugs” in the 1980’s. [7]

Paragraph 8: A summary tying all the above events together.

Conclusion: How the above events compare and contrast to the drug situation in Mexico and America today. [1]

 

RA 4: Roots of Contemporary Issues: Americas Need for Speed (and other drugs) Creates Mexico’s War on Drugs

Since the dawn of mankind marijuana, cocaine, opium, and various other drugs have been used to achieve a state of mind that we all know as ‘getting high’. Now, even though drugs have always been ever present in society, it was not until the 1960’s do we see a rise in drug culture. A culture that exploded in the 1980’s and has caused significant issues in the United States, but more notably in Mexico where drug crime is now integral to the countries identity. Mexico is America’s number one drug supplier, for hundreds of thousands of pounds of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin cross the Mexican border yearly. This illegal trade of these highly demanded pleasure inducing substances to the United States has caused a vast amount of crime and grief in the country. Today the war on drugs is still being fought in America, at the border, and more largely, in Mexico. A British frontline reporter who goes by the name Grillo has been living in Mexico and has been documenting the drug war for over twelve years. During his time in Mexico he has seen many violent acts performed by the infamous cartels. [1] But, it was not until 2006 that he noticed a huge increase in the malevolent crimes committed by these influential gangs. The reason the cartels were created and have grown to such power in these past few decades is mainly due the huge amount of drugs that is being illegally trafficked to the United States. Mexico’s current state of unruliness begs the historical question of how narcotics became powerful and dangerous enough to cause a full-scale war in Mexico. [2]

Thesis: To find the root of an issue that has prevailed throughout the years, one has dig deep through all the layers of information before finally striking the initial cause. When it comes to the Drug war in Mexico there are a lot of layers, but each one contains vital information that sheds light on what events were the embers that eventually sparked the blazing fire that is Mexico’s war on drugs. After sifting through all the information it can be seen that the United States of America plays a crucial role in the cause of the war on drugs. Their role being comprised of multiple factors that include not only its high demand for narcotics, but also the policies that were set in place to combat the increasing demand. The 1920’s is where this effect can first be seen when prohibition was set in place.  Although, this law dealt with the illegalization of consumption of alcohol it opened the door for many American’s to turn to drug usage. Speakeasies infamous to the roaring ‘20’s scene were a popular place for cocaine and marijuana users. [3] In the 1930’s American officials started to recognize the expansion of the drug scene, mainly that of marijuana, and taxes and laws were set in place in an attempt to slow and eventually stamp out the use of cannabis. But, despite their efforts marijuana usage continued to grow [4].

Although, the U.S. was not alone when it came to setting policies in place that restricted the flow of drugs across the border. In 1923 Mexico placed their own set of restrictions that banned the importation of narcotics into Mexico.  Then in 1927 the exportation of heroin and marijuana was also made illegal. [5] In 1948 Mexico finally decided to enact, “Mexico’s first “national eradication campaign,” also called La Gran Campaña (the Great Campaign).” [6] This campaign took the burden out of the hands of the Mexican police force, who proved to be unaffected, and placed it onto the shoulders of the country’s military. The military’s job was to do their best to remove all opium and marijuana fields from Mexico’s land through burning and stamping methods. Unfortunately, the combination of the U.S.’s and Mexico’s “clever” restriction policies only accomplished the raising of the price of the highly demanded narcotics. With such a considerable profit to be made underground operations began to flourish, for marijuana and opium cultivators simply turned to the murder or bribery of Mexican officials to keep their production amounts flowing. [7]

Policies remained relatively the same in both America and Mexico until the 1960’s where it became evident that the current set of eradication methods were proving to be unsuccessful. By 1967 thirteen percent of Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five confessed to have consumed marijuana, a number that rose ten percent in a matter of only five years. Undoubtedly, the hippie scene spurred by the Vietnam War defiantly contributed to the rising demand of narcotics in the United States. [8] To combat the drug scene that still seemed to be growing, the Mexican and U.S. government decided to work together to implement Operation Condor. Operation Condor involved Mexico using the U.S.’s aerial surveillance technology to target opium, cocaine, and marijuana crops by spraying them with herbicides. [9] This proved to be a successful tactic and soon the three crops were reduced significantly, for on an annual basis around fifteen-thousand acres of marijuana and thirty thousand acres of opium were effectively destroyed.[10] But, this was not achieved without consequences, for, “. . .stiffer antidrug law enforcement, particularly eradication and interdiction programs, tend to have a “cartelization” effect on the market, in the sense that they push less daring and smaller traffickers out of the business and thus benefit the most powerful and organized”. [11] These more ‘powerful and organized’ groups are the equivalent to the drug cartels that we know today. They manage to boost their production of narcotics by increasing the number of officials they pay off or the amount of violent forces used to defy officials.
Evidence of the ‘cartelization effect’ can be seen in countries just south of Mexico. In 1975 The New York Times sent reporters down to Latin America for two months to gather information on the logistics behind the drug trafficking scene that occurred mostly in what was called the ‘silver triangle’. During their time spent in Santa Cruz, Paraguay, and western Brazil, reporters caught on to the trail of corruption. It became blatantly apparent that those who were busted for drugs were being let off the hook due to major officials being paid off. Gage provides evidence of this when he writes, “If drug traffickers can’t use political influence to stop investigations against them, they. . .have so much available cash, for example in Colombia judges sometimes compete to try major narcotics cases because of the potential payoffs involved.”[12] Due to these occurrences practically everyone in the drug trade is considered untouchable. Which creates quite a problem for those officials who are trying to stem the flow of heroin and cocaine into the United States, a problem that has been rising since the end of WWII. But, according to the attitudes of Latin American countries such as Peru, who Gage claims, “The Peruvian Government has no unified policy on coca. Many Ministers feel that cocaine is an American problem and not a Peruvian Responsibility.” [13] Although, unlike Peru, other counties have been working hard to rid their land of the insurmountable amount of coca crops being grown, a task that is proving to be redundant, for as fast as the crops are cut down twice as many are replanted. But, as said by police Capt. Theodoro Campo Gomez, “There are too many loopholes in our laws and not enough cooperation between countries,”[14] a factor that makes the stamping out of the drug scene close to impossible.

As seen above drug cartels hold the most power in the drug scene, even more so than that of the United States and Mexican governments. Whenever a stricter law is set in place, the cartels are able to rapidly adjust and continue on with business as usual. For instance, when Operation Condor was enacted, cartels responded by spreading out crops to make them hard to locate from the air.[15] When authorities would get on the trail of cartels spies would tip off the cartels allowing them to get away at the last second. It seems as if it doesn’t matter how severe the laws become, for as determined as drug traffickers are, they always seem to find a loophole. [16] Although, sometimes its not the traffickers them selves finding a way out of being convicted. For instance it can be the judges who reside on the bench who let the cartels off.  This can be because they were bribed or it can also be a result of the judges finding the punishment to not fit the crime.  This can be seen in 1956 when the U.S. set in place a mandatory death penalty for those who were twenty one and over and convicted of selling drugs to a minor. Most judges thought this to be too harsh of a law, so they would more often then not find the defended not guilty [7].

Conclusion: How the above events compare/contrast/lead  to the drug situation in Mexico and America today. ((Depending on if its the right direction))

Endnotes:

[1] Billy Briggs, “FRONT LINE MEXICO,” Sunday Mail, October 6, 2013, from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1439564475?accountid=14902 (accessed January 20, 2017).

[2] Billy Briggs, “FRONT LINE MEXICO,” Sunday Mail, October 6, 2013, from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1439564475?accountid=14902 (accessed January 20, 2017).

[3]  Isralowitz, Richard. 2002. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

[4]Isralowitz, Richard. 2002. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

[5]Isralowitz, Richard. 2002. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

[6] María Celia Toro,  Mexico’s ‘war’ on Drugs : Causes and Consequences, (Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers,1995)

[7]María Celia Toro,  Mexico’s ‘war’ on Drugs : Causes and Consequences, (Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers,1995)

[8]María Celia Toro,  Mexico’s ‘war’ on Drugs : Causes and Consequences, (Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers,1995)

[9] Craig, Richard. “Operation Condor: Mexico’s Antidrug Campaign Enters a New Era.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 22, no. 3 (1980): 345-63. doi:10.2307/165493

[10] JAMES M. “Earlier Efforts and Errors in War on Drugs.” New York Times, Jan 06, 1973, 1.

[11] María Celia Toro,  Mexico’s ‘war’ on Drugs : Causes and Consequences, (Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers,1995)

[12] Nicholas Gage, “Latins now leaders of hard-drug trade”, New York Times, April 21, 1975, 61.

[13] Nicholas Gage, “Latins now leaders of hard-drug trade”, New York Times, April 21, 1975, 61.

[14] Nicholas Gage, “Latins now leaders of hard-drug trade”, New York Times, April 21, 1975, 61.

[15] Craig, Richard. “Operation Condor: Mexico’s Antidrug Campaign Enters a New Era.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 22, no. 3 (1980): 345-63. doi:10.2307/165493

[16] Felix Belair, “Drug Drive Opens At Mexico Border”, New York Times,  September 22 1969, 1.

[17] Payan, Tony, Staudt, Kathleen, and Kruszewski, Z. Anthony, eds. 2013. A War that Can’t Be Won : Binational Perspectives on the War on Drugs. Tucson, US: University of Arizona Press.

 

Geographic Focus: Mexico, U.S.A

Search Terms: Mexic* AND drug*, Mexic* drug trade, drug* Latin America, heroin in Mexico, Mexica* Cocaine, drug war, Marijuana U.S. Popularity, U.S. Drug Timeline, Foriegn Relation* AND drug*, drug* AND 1960’s, Mexic* drug cartel*

Primary Source Data Base: New York Times

Primary Source Date Limiter: 1900-1979

Historical Research Questions: How did the usage of drugs in America impact the increase in drug related crimes in mexico? What did the Mexican Government do to try and stop the increase in Crime, did it help? How did the drug crime get so out of hand in Mexico? What did the U.S. do to help?

Under Castro’s control and with his decisions in trade with a different country, it has affected the relationships with countries that are still happening today.

Download PDF

Fidel Castro’s ruling did not start until the late 1950s when he overthrew Fulgencio Batista with armed forces in Cuba.[3]  Cuba decided to take action under Castro’s ruling during the Cold War.  At this point there was tension between the Soviet Union and the United States.  In the 1950s was when times were heated because of the changes that were occurring.  Around 1959 Cuba was trying to reduce their dependency from the United States.[2]  Sugar was one way that the leaders of Cuba used to continue their economic development but this would eventually bring problems and concerns to the United States.  Dependency that Cuba had with the United States led to a zero percent trade with United States and an increase of 49 percent of trade with the Soviet Union.[1]  This economic growth continued until about 1961 and according to an article by William M. Leogrande and Julie M Thomas, it was “due to bottlenecks which caused sugar prices to go up reducing exports and affecting production.” [3]
Castro’s power allowed him to move around, work and make agreements with different countries.  With his decisions that he made in order to benefit himself and Cuba, he changed a lot of the relationships during the 1950s and 1960s that are still happening up to this day.  The citizens of Cuba were concerned with the different movements happening in regards to the Soviets going into Cuba as well as the poverty level at the time.[9]  He changed a lot of the policies and also changed trading partners from the United States, to then going to trade sugar with the Soviets.  This change of Cuba dealing with the Soviets grew a lot of concern in different areas to the United States and other countries that were afraid of this alliance.  Eventually different events came up.  The Bay of Pigs Operation was something that happened during the time, as well as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Castro came to power when he overthrew Fulgencio Batista from his position as a military dictator. There was a point where there was serious tension between Castro and Batista and even though Batista had Castro and could have killed him.[3]  He never finished the job and Castro ran away from the country to plan his counterattack.  When Castro was ready to attack and he had his plan to remove Batista from power, in the early stages, the United States was supporting this movement because at the time it was leading towards democracy and it would eventually benefit the United States if Castro were to be successful.
When the United States saw how much power Castro was having they did not quite agree with the direction that his agenda was going in.  The United States eventually took action and decided it was best to act than to wait for catastrophic events to happen with Cuba being allies with the wrong countries.  The US stopped the sugar trade with Cuba.  Since Cuba produced a lot of sugar they were limited on what they would do with so much supply so they had to sell it.[3]  Cuba eventually signed a deal with the Soviet Union on sugar, which is something that concerned the United States.  It was a growing concern to the United States  but it wasn’t until the United States discovered the missile base that the USSR was building in Cuba (near the US) when the United States was more concerned about the serious risks and damage that that relationship would do. [4]  The United States found out about Russia creating a missile base in Cuba it was of concern essentially because it was in the backyard of the United States which i’ll go more in depth in the next few paragraphs.
Moscow played a big role in continuing to finance money for Cuba during it’s 5 year agreement for trade.  Cuba has been dealing a lot with politics and especially with the struggle to independence from any other country.[9]  The plan that Cuba had in mind was to generate enough money on exports so that it would eventually free Cuba from its deficit that it was suffering from.  The Soviets were holding on and sustaining the Cuban economy with the continuous trade of sugar during the time. [9]  When Cuba went to sell Sugar to the USSR the production of sugar declined over time.  By 1963 this affected the citizens of Cuba.  The standard of living in Cuba was poor.  There was a lot of poverty, Fidel Castro talked about his economic plans and he acknowledge it wasn’t doing well.  They for sometime refused to receive medicine or other essentials that the united States would proved.[2]  Cuba in order to fix its economy proposed a goal to meet a targe of about 10 million tons of sugar each year.
As Cuba was gaining power and was becoming a bigger threat to the United States happened about the same time as presidential elections in the United States.  John F. Kennedy had been declared as the new president in January 20th in 1961 .Nobody was supposed to know the the United States was involved.  The reason was this wasn’t a successful operation was because of all the restrictions and the fact that there were no set agreement set in stone 100 percent confirmed of how the operation was going to go.[8]  Since the operation was already planned during the previous president of the United States.  It was left for John F. Kennedy to carry on with the operation.  The people in the operation were not Americans, they were CIA trained ex Cuban exiles.  They wanted the people and Cubans to start against him but that act united them more and made them close, completely the opposite of what the United States wanted.
The Cuban Missile Crisis started early before John F. Kennedy took office.  The alliance that was happening between Cuba and the Soviets grew concern to the United States.[7]  The U.S tried to help the Cuban exiles take back Cuba from Castro.  But at the moment the Soviet leader was placing missiles and making a base near the backyard of the US.   In 1962 Oct. 15th-28th 13 days of October, a plane took pictures and saw that missiles have been in place facing the United States.  It was at this time when a decision needed to be made on what JFK was going to with the missile threats and the fact that the Soviets had missiles just 90 miles away from the United States.  As stated in James’ article, during the thirteen days the world and even the Soviet Union saw a clear determination in the use of power that the united states had. [7] With this event even if the United States would have chosen to invade Cuba and send the Soviets back there would have been a big effect on the relationships with foreign countries. As James A. Nathan stated in his article “this indeed might become a turning point in the relations between the east and west. [7]

Conclusion: How have these changes in power affected the trade market and the way we see different countries as allies?[11]

[1] Adam M. Pilarski and Donald Snyder, “Economic Effects of Revolution: A Reevaluation of Cuban Evidence,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 86, No. 5(Mar., 1981) pp. 1124-1129

[2] William M. Leogrande and Julie E. Thomas, “Cuba’s Quest for Economic Independence,” Journal of Latin American Studies Volume 34, Issue 2 (2002) pp.325-363

[3] Kosmas Tsokhas, “The Political Economy of Cuban Dependence on the Soviet Union,” Theory and Society, Vol. 9, No. 2, Special Issue on Actual Socialism (mar., 1980). pp.319-362

[4] Russell H. Fitzgibbon, “The Revolution Next Door: Cuba” March, 1961.  http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2135/stable/172569?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents

[5] Argote-Freyre, Frank, “Fulgencio Batista: The making of a dictator,” New Brunswick : Rutgers University Press.  April 2006, Accessed Feb. 23, 2017.  http://site.ebrary.com/lib/wsu/detail.action?docID=10150133  pp. 22-24

[6] erepouni Daily News, “US visa-free residency for Cubans ends,” Syndigate Media Inc, Copyright 2017, http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2052/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?oc=00240&hnsd=f&hgn=t&lni=5MMH-19V1-JDJN-607S&hns=t&perma=true&hv=t&hl=t&csi=411452&secondRedirectIndicator=true
(accessed January 13, 2017).

[7] James A. Nathan, “The Missile Crisis: His Finest Hour Now,” Cambridge University: World Politics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jan., 1975), Accessed March 20th, 2017. Pg. 272 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2009883.pdf

[8]  “Official Inside Story of the Cuban Invasion,” U.S. News & World Report.  August 13, 1979,  Accessed 3/20/17.  http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=8065&sr=HEADLINE%28Official+inside+story+of+the+Cuba+invasion%29%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B1979

[9]  Jorge Mario Sanchez “Challenges of Economic Restructuring in Cuba”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.  2012, Accessed March 20th 2017,  Pg. 143

[10] Ricardo Torres Perez, “Economic Changes in Cuba: current Situation and Perspectives”, Harvard International Review. Summer 2012.  Accessed March 20th 2017.

[11]  International New York Times, “With one Castro Gone, Questions what the other Castro will do,”  Nov 27th, 2016, http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2098/newsstand/docview/1843905164/A851D8CB534D4625PQ/1?accountid=14902  (accessed January 13, 2017).

________________________________________

Geographic focus: Cuba, Havana, Soviet Union, (also may include Mexico)

Search Terms: Diploma*, Batista, Socialis*, Cuba, Soviet Union, Sugar, Trade, Communis*
John F. Kennedy,  Bay of Pigs,  Cuban Missile Crisis

Primary Source: Sage Publications

Date Timer: 1940-1979

Historical Research Questions:  What role did the Soviets play when Cuba and the United States had tension, and how did they manage to make the United States take action against Cuba and Castro.

Women’s Rights in Afghanistan – RA #4

Download PDF

Hook:  After many years of fighting against their own people, Afghan women have finally integrated themselves into Afghan political life, however, call for action to advance and protect women’s rights has risen as talk of presidential candidates trying to make peace with the Taliban puts women’s rights in danger. Since just a decade ago Afghanistan was a completely male-dominated country, there is no question that there should be awareness that the political climate of Afghanistan is fragile and can change really quick. Moreover, seeing that a record breaking “300 women are running for provincial council seat around the country [and] for the first time a woman is running for vice president on a leading ticked,” a setback in women’s rights will not go down without a fight. [1] Hence, women seek to ensure their future before western influence disappears from Afghanistan and/or extremists gain back political power where “[women’s] celebratory moment [will be] also colored by the worry that those gains [could] so easily be reversed,” for some presidential candidates will still not allow their wives to make public appearances. [2] Nonetheless, as female political figure, Ms. Sarobi, stated: “people want some change and a woman on the ticket is [the start] for that change,” reassuring worried populace that a deterioration of core morals of newly acquired rights is unlikely, for many presidential candidates have figured out the value of women and have gone to women’s groups to take their opinions into account. [3] This change in views raises questions about the drastic change in political views in Afghanistan and the path that led to that change.

Early thesis: The Russian invasion in the late 1970s to keep communism in Afghanistan directly disturbed, destabilized, and dismantled women rights in Afghanistan that without external help and financial aid the future of women in Afghanistan is jeopardized.

Paragraph #3: analysis of the first era of change for women in the 1920s. [4]

Paragraph #4: analysis of the 1970s women movements and the controversial PDPA, which creates a path to the invasion. [5]

Paragraph #5: 1979~1989 Afghanistan’s decade long war because of the Russian invasion, which rips all the progress women had been making since the 1920s. [6]

Paragraph #6: Analysis of the condition of women after invasion. [7][8]

Paragraph #7: (I’m thinking of changing this paragraph to a contrast between three articles, one in 1970s before the invasion, one in 1979~1989, and one right after the invasion to really see the drastic change that took place. From women gaining a lot of recognition/rights to loosing everything gained) Just to compare the drastic change that took place here is what an American reporter, Fergus M. Bordewich, from The New York Times newspaper reported on December 9, 1973 when Afghanistan was still on the prime of male-dominance in their country. In a segment titled “Where Women Are an Annoyance That Disturbs the Symmetry of Life” he writes about the impossibility of feminism in Afghanistan after spending a significant amount of time in Afghanistan, a proclaimed Muslim country, and paying close attention to the status of Afghan women. Later he takes a cautionary tone toward travelers suggesting, especially female travelers, to “avoid some of the embarrassing, unpleasant, [and] even potentially dangerous situations” one can witness by visiting Afghanistan. [9] Further, he explains that the inferior behavior toward women is accepted in their society because of the highly religious culture they live in, where “a Muslim woman moves only as the shadow of a male… women do not have souls… [and] the most basic relationship is between men and God,” at last concluding that “to the average Muslim, a woman is a mere accessory of life.” [10] However, not taking into account that the Islam orthodox might have been taken to the extreme by religious extremists.

Conclusion: Talk about how this bipolar change that follows Afghanistan in regards to women’s rights is still happening today and western powers need to help and aid Afghan women. [11]

[1] Nordland Rod, “Wary hope for Afghan women: Candidates are trying to advance rights before Western influence fades,” International New York Times, April 3rd, 2014, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/1511947273/C725E5DBC2564E3CPQ/1?accountid=14902 (Accessed February 2, 2017).

[2] International New York Times, April 3rd, 2014.

[3] International New York Times, April 3rd, 2014.

[4] Dr. Huma Ahmed-Ghosh, “A History of women in Afghanistan: Lessons Learnt for the Future Or Yesterdays and Tomorrow: Women in Afghanistan,” Journal of international women’s studies Vol. 4, issue #3 (May, 2003): pages 4-6

[5] Ahmed-Ghosh, “A History of women in Afghanistan: Lessons Learnt for the Future Or Yesterdays and Tomorrow: Women in Afghanistan,” pages 6-7

[6] Inger Marie Okkenhaug, Ingvild Flaskerud, Gender, religion and change in the Middle East: two hundred years of history (Oxford; New York: Berg, 2005) pp.

[7] Okkenhaug, Flaskerud, Gender, religion and change in the Middle East, pp.

[8] Ahmed-Ghosh, “A History of women in Afghanistan: Lessons Learnt for the Future Or Yesterdays and Tomorrow: Women in Afghanistan,” pages 7-10

[9] Fergus M. Bordewich, “Where Women Are an Annoyance That Disturbs the Symmetry of Life,” The New York Times, December 9, 1973, accessed February 7, 2017, http://search.proquest.com/docview/119750727/abstract/85C437A5D262418FPQ/7?accountid=14902.

[10] The New York Times, December 9, 1973.

[11] Sally Armstrong, Veiled threat: the hidden power of the women of Afghanistan (Toronto: Viking, 2002) pp.

___________________________________________________________________________

Geographic focus: Western Europe and USA.

Search terms: Rights, Wom?n, Afghan*, histor*, Russia*, PDPA.

Primary Source Search Date Limiter: 1970s (start of women getting active/gaining rights) -1989 (women losing rights)

Historical Research Questions: How did the Russian invasion of 1979 affect women’s rights? And how did it affect the future of the country in regards to women’s issues?