You need to respond to both prompts. Read instructions carefully.
IF YOU NEED ACCESS TO THE READINGS, PLEASE INFORM ME. DO NOT COMPLETE THE ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT CORRECT CITATIONS. THIS MEANS READ THE INSTRUCTIONS VERY CAREFULLY. IF THE ASSIGNMENT IS DONE INCORRECTLY, I WILL DISPUTE HALF OF THE BID BACK.
Prompt 1
For this discussion, students will pick a strain in the historiography that they believe best reflects the historical reality of the Great Depression and then extrapolate to answer the question:
Are you a Keynesian? Why or why not? Or, are you a free marketeer like Hayek?
It’s important that students become aware of some of the popular arguments historians have put forward to understand Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression. These should help you think critically about your own position. After you have considered the three strains in the historiography below, answer the question—Are you a Keynesian, or do you agree with Hayek?
This is an opportunity for everyone to express their judgment, backed with supporting logic and evidence.
The conventional arguments made by historians can be reduced to the following:
1– Economic historians often debate the efficacy of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Many liberal historians (liberal as in “New Deal historians” sympathetic to Keynesian economics) have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies did help lift the American economy from the Great Depression. In short, the American economy was rescued by Roosevelt’s New Deal. Keynesians typically agree with this argument.
2– Other liberal historians (liberal as in “hard core New Deal historians” that celebrate Keynes), however, have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies did not do enough, and that Roosevelt and the Democrats in fact should have provided a much more rigorous set of programs to help rescue American from the economic abyss. According to this second set of liberal historians, Americans could have emerged from the Great Depression much sooner, with a stronger and more dynamic economy, had Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats offered a stronger federal response. More intervention was needed. Keynesians love this argument!
3–Conservative economic historians (influenced by free market economists like Hayek) have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies slowed the recovery, in part because any attempt by the government to intervene in the economy is largely misdirected, led by incompetents, and in fact worsens the problem. National economic systems are so complex and public policy makers are incapable of understanding the unintended consequences of their programs, therefore practically every attempt by government at reform ends in disaster. Many conservative economic historians have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies prolonged the economic malaise, likely contributed to a deeper economic collapse, and in the process created an enlarged nation-state with a sprawling bureaucracy with powers that threatened American economic liberty. In other words, not only did the New Deal worsen the economic situation, but Americans also suffered a loss of personal liberty because the institutions that came from the New Deal greatly empowered the central state. Historians who favor Hayek’s interpretation of the Great Depression, and more generally historians and economists who oppose interventionist strategies, favor this interpretation (Milton Friedman).
Take a position. Think about how these ideas are applied to contemporary political economy.
Students should certainly watch the Yergin documentary The Commanding Heights for insight. And be sure to read the relevant documents in the Johnson for added perspective.
Criteria:
Requirements for all discussions.
Failure to complete the requirements will result in lower scores.
–Each response should be 1-2 pages long.
–The discussion and response to a classmates’ post should be submitted via canvas by the due date.
–Your response to every discussion prompt should be written in an argumentative format. It should answer the question in language that takes a strong position and makes your answer to the question abundantly clear. Do not simply write a narrative of events, and avoid writing a response that offers only a general discussion of the topic. Rather, write in such a way that makes clear you are trying to prove a point—to convince somebody of an argument.
–You must have a thesis statement that presents your argument in clear and coherent language, in this case, your answer to the discussion question. The response must cite specific pieces of evidence. The evidence helps prove the argument. The evidence is sourced to the course readings.
—
Reference at least one of the sources/materials from the module.
Because there are no page numbers in the Yawp, you will cite the chapter and section. For instance: (Yawp, 13, II)—13 is the chapter, II is the section.
For the Johnson, indicate the authors and page number, for instance: (Carnegie, 100). No need for a works cited page.
Purpose
This discussion asks you to apply the concepts from the module’s readings to present your thoughts on a major debate in U.S. History. This practice helps you to develop the skill of engaging with sources. You have the opportunity here to practice applying, translating, and re-working what you have learned to function in unexpected ways.
Learning Objectives
1. Recall key events, figures, and ideas of WWI and the interwar period in the United States.
2. Contextualize, criticize, defend, and debate significant ideas found in historical primary sources of WWI and the interwar period in the United States.
IF YOU NEED ACCESS TO THE READINGS, PLEASE INFORM ME. DO NOT COMPLETE THE ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT CORRECT CITATIONS. THIS MEANS READ THE INSTRUCTIONS VERY CAREFULLY. IF THE ASSIGNMENT IS DONE INCORRECTLY, I WILL DISPUTE HALF OF THE BID BACK.
Although historians still debate whether America should have entered WWI, there is a consensus that WWII was a defensive war and therefore the “right war to fight.”
Indeed, Americans who fought against international fascism and defended democratic liberalism during WWII have been heralded as the “Greatest Generation.”
For some historians, it is absolutely clear that the U.S. was on the “right side of history” during WWII. In other words, there are clear distinctions between good and evil during WWII, and the U.S. and its allies were fighting for the betterment of humanity. Nazi terror across Europe, and the atrocities committed by the Japanese in Asia brought an unprecedented level of human suffering. The U.S. liberated France, freed Holocaust prisoners, and forced the Japanese from China. The Americans, in short, were “the good guys.” For other historians, the differences between good and evil during WWII are not absolute. The U.S., we are reminded, was allies with the Stalinist regime. This alliance helped legitimize Stalin’s policies before and after the war, which historians estimate led the deliberate killing of some 10 million Soviets. And the U.S. was responsible for target-bombing civilian centers, most notably the firebombing of Japan at the end of WWII, which killed an estimated 1 million Japanese civilians, rendered millions homeless, and destroyed practically every major Japanese city.
For this discussion address the following question:
Prompt
To what extent is WWII morally ambiguous for the U.S.?
Put differently, are the moral distinctions between the Allied and Axis powers absolutely clear? Are you absolutely certain that the Americans were the “good guys” during WWII?
Make sure your essay takes a clear position—make an argument. Your argument is the answer to the question: is American participation in WWII morally ambiguous? Then spend the rest of the essay proving your answer to the question.
Criteria
Requirements for all discussions.
Failure to complete the requirements will result in lower scores.
–Each response should be 1-2 pages long (approximately 300 words).
–The discussion and response to a classmates’ post should be submitted via canvas by the due date.
–Your response to every discussion prompt should be written in an argumentative format. It should answer the question in language that takes a strong position and makes your answer to the question abundantly clear. Do not simply write a narrative of events, and avoid writing a response that offers only a general discussion of the topic. Rather, write in such a way that makes clear you are trying to prove a point—to convince somebody of an argument.
–To write an argumentative essay you must have a thesis statement that presents your argument in clear and coherent language, in this case, your answer to the discussion question. The response must cite specific pieces of evidence. The evidence helps prove the argument. The evidence is sourced to the course readings.
–Each discussion
will reference at least one of the sources from the course readings.
Because there are no page numbers in the Yawp, you will cite the chapter and section. For instance: (Yawp, 13, II)—13 is the chapter, II is the section.
For the Johnson, indicate the authors and page number, for instance: (Carnegie, 100).
Purpose
This discussion asks you to apply the concepts from the module’s readings to present your thoughts on a major event in U.S. History. This practice helps you to develop the skill of defending a position using logic and evidence. You have the opportunity here to practice applying, translating, and re-working what you have learned to function in unexpected ways.
Learning Objectives
1. Recall key events, figures, and ideas of WWII and the post-war period in the United States.
2. Contextualize, criticize, defend, and debate significant ideas found in historical primary sources of WWII and post-war period in the United States.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
