History 420 - Dr. Gayle Olson-Raymer

Content Wrap Up: Europe before North American Colonization; How the Empire Builders of WWI brought you ISIS; and the 1970s to 1980s: the Decline of Liberalism and the Rise of Conservativsm

Do Now: In a group of four, discuss the following for 5 minutes: President-Elect Trump has nomiated Betsy De Vos to be his Secretary of State. Her supporters applaud the nomination, noting that she is a great proponent of privatization. What does it mean to be a public servant who supports privatization? Specifically, what does it mean to support privatization in education? Can you provide another example of privatization goals supported by other the Trump nominees?

Methods Discussion: Read the Map. How would you compare this map of Europe in 1500 with the contemporary map of Europe? What is different? What is the same?

The story of the British colonization of North America begins in 15th and early 16th century Europe - with an undertanding of the English who eventually decided to immigrate to the "New World."

• What have you previously learned about why the English left England to migrate to North America?
• What does this video tell you about why a commoner in England would want to leave England and migrate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

To help you and your students get a better understanding of the ordinary lives of the British in Medieval Europe, watch and/or assign the following:

• Medieval Lives: The Peasant at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Z1eb4TRqs (30 minutes)
• Medieval Lives: The King at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYLXlbE6Ly4 (30 minutes)
• Medieval Lives: The Damsel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1YQwlzdh14 (30 minutes)
  

Discussion Goals

1. To review the geopolitical realities of Europe in the Middle Ages.
2. To understand the political, social, and economic systems of feudalism and emerging mercantilism in 15th, 16th, and 17th century Europe.
3. To examine the realities of everyday life in 15th, 16th, and 17th century Europe.
4. To explore the changing role of religion in 16th century Europe and how it impacted European immigration to the "New World."
5. To discuss why some Europeans were willing to leave their homelands in exchange for the uncertainties of life in North America.
6. To address the question, "why does any of this matter?"

Goal #1: To review the geopolitical realities of Europe in the Middle Ages

Access the power point presentation: "A Geopolitical Understanding of Medieval Europe"

• It involved a strict hierarchy of rank, where every person knew his place – the lord and knight to his king and the peasant to his landlord to whom he owed service and from whom he received his land and orders to work the land.
• Its goal was to preserve these relationships forever - thus ensuring that those at the bottom of the social network had little to no upward mobility.

In the 1500s, a type of feudal pyramid existed that described the social/political/economic power structure of medieval society:

• At the top was the King who claimed ownership of all the land.
• Second were the nobles or landlords to whom the King granted land. Nobles swore to serve and protect the King.
• Third were the knights or vassals who were less powerful miliary men and to whom the King also granted land in exchange for fighting for the king in case of war.
• At the bottom were the peasants who were directly responsible to the noble and knights who owned the land.

The pyramid can be altered by adding the most powerful person in Europe during this time to the top of the pyramid - the Pope.

The beginning of Mercantalism. By the late 15th and early 16th centuries, the old feudal order was changing - especially in England. The King, as well as his nobles and knights, were less interested in the old relationships whereby land and agriculture were the heart and soul of the economy. Land no longer was viewed as "an anchoring relationship embedded in a set of land use rights" (Brooks: 23). Instead, a whole new economic system developed around capital and commercialism.

At the same time, England's population was dramatically increasing. From an estimated population of 2.5 million in 1520, there were 5 million English men and women in 1680. Further, its cities experienced huge population increases, from 50,000 in the 1520s to 400,000 by 1650.

What resulted was a profound economic transformation whereby the King allowed his nobles and knights to convert their lands and lease them for progressive "improvement" so that they could use the profits from the new leases to finance commercial, industrial, and colonial ventures. The consequences were dramatic:

• The landlords', knights', and peasants' relationship to the land dramatically changed.
  • Peasants no longer had control over a plot of land and instead, had to enter into a leaseholding agreement in which they became tenants at the will of their landlord.
  • Peasants were evicted from their newly converted lands and through the leases, became "free" wage laborers.
    • In 1560, about 25 percent of all English households were headed by wage laborers; by 1620, 40 percent of all households were headed by wage laborers.
    • Wage laborers looking for jobs helped the English population shift from the rural countryside to congested cities.
• The land changed through various economic "improvements."
  • One of the major improvements was enclosure - turning land that traditionally had been used for public use and farming into fenced, private pasture land - especially for sheep to fuel the growing wool industry.
    • Enclosure brought about a modern idea - the private ownership of land.
    • In the 16th century, about 4 percent of open fields land was enclosed; by the 17th century, 50 percent of such land was enclosed.
  • Marshes, bogs, and wetlands were drained to provide more land for improvement, thereby impacting the seasonal flows of water and decreasing or destroying the fish, duck, geese, birds, otters, frogs, and fox populations.
  • Forests were cut down to increase pastureland for profit and to build the ships needed for the new commercial economy, further impacting populations of mammals and birds. Naval historian G. J. Marcus explained that for each naval ship built in 17th century England, it took about 2,000 oak treees that were at least 150 years old. Thus, each ship would have caused the clear cutting of at least 100 acres of forest. (Marcus, 1961:32) A survey of oaks in six royal forests found that between 1608 and 1783, 75 percent of the English oaks disappeared. (Brooks:70)
  • Coal-mining industries grew exponentially from 200,000 tons in 1530 to 1.5 million tons in 1630, thereby transforming the face of the land and polluting both the water and air.
• A new "permanent proletariat" of landless laborers arose in England.
  • By the 17th century, 50-70 percent of the English population were landless laborers (compared with 10-20 percent during the 16th century.)
  • These landless laborers comprised a new class of economic migrants - men and families - who had to move long distances to search for work in industrial and urban areas. In some cases, the moved into the forest which became "zones of disorder and lawlessness." (Brooks: 287)
• Mercantilism- the belief that the nation, not the individuals within it, was the principal actor in the economy - became the economic foundation of the English economy. The goal of the economy, then, should be to increase the nation's wealth - largely through acquiring gold and silver - rather than increasing the wealth of individuals.
  • Merchants believed that the world's wealth was finite and that one nation could only grow rich at the expense of another.   Therefore, the nation's economic health was dependent upon extracting and importing wealth from foreign lands and exporting very little wealth from home.
  • To meet their needs, merchants sought assistance from the king who, in turn, benefited from the expansion of foreign trade.
  • Some merchants joined forces and formed chartered companies - or corporations. Each corporation acquired a charter from the King. The charter gave the corporation a monopoly on trading in a particular region.

As a result of mercantalism, the social, political, and economic fabric of English society was disrupted and consequently, inequality greatly increased. The goal of both the King and the financial backers who owned the corporations was to make profit for the nation and for its investors - not to provide a stable social, political, and economic relationship between landowners and peasants.

A new belief arose that the betterment of the individual was more important than the betterment of the larger commuity. In short, it created a new consumer society in which "the possession of goods (rather than inherited status, or connection to a community or a place) would play a significant role in establishing the social position of the individual." (Brooks: 98)

The "bottom line" - the social, political, and economic lives of the vast majority of English men and women were dramatically changed by the end of feudalism and the origin of mercantilism.

• Social, political, and economic inequality due to feudalism.
• Fragile food supply and famine.
• Poor health and the spread of infectious diseases.
• Uncertain economy.
• Overpopulation.
• Dangerous standards of living in urban and rural areas.
• Child victimization.
• Intolerance.
• Warfare.
• An idealistic image of the "New World."

• Poor health and poor health care were the norm among Europeans. Because most people never bathed within their lifetime, all places of human and animal habitation gave off vile aromas. Almost everyone had a brush with smallpox and other deforming diseases, leaving survivors partially blind, pockmarked, or crippled. On the other hand, it is now believed that the poor had better dental health than previously assumed - larged because they had a coarse diet that kept their teeth healthy and they ate virtually no sugar. (See "Medieval Lives: the Peasant" )
• Women's health was especially precarious given the fact that during their 15 most fertile years, the vast majority of women were about to become pregnant, were pregnant, or were about to give birth. On an average, women had 7-8 pregnancies, with only 3 or 4 children surviving to age 10. Despite pregnancies and births, women had to perform their traditional tasks.
• Disease was rampant. Between 1347 and 1353, a widespread epidemic of bubonic plague, or Black Death, swept through Europe from Asia. Within six years, the plague had killed about one- third of Europe's population. Cities were especially hit hard; in 1348, Florence lost between 50-75% of its entire population.

• The Black Death triggered a massive depression through its disruption of agriculture and commerce. The 15th Century recovery temporarily stimulated the economy but by the end of the century when mercantilism was saving one small segment of the population, the vast majority of Europeans faced a steady decline in the quality of their lives.
• Massive inflation resulted - prices doubled at the end of the century and quadrupled between 1520 and 1590.
• A pioneering study of English society conducted at the end of the 17th Century estimated that half of the population lived at or below the poverty line.

• 1500 = European population was about 75 million
• 1520 = England's population was about 2.5 million; by 1550, it was 3 million; by 1600, it was 4 million; and by 1680, it was 5 million

Child victimization. In addition to outrageous mortality rates for European children due to exposure, disease, and malnutrition, poor children were also victims of abandonment, slavery, and infanticide. To relieve overcrowding in homes, English parents often sent their children to live as servants where many often became victims of assault, rape, and even murder.

• In Spain, thousands upon thousands of children who could not be cared for were simply left to die on dungheaps or placed in road side ditches. (Stannard, 1992:61)
• The 14th and 15th Century slave trade had a huge market for children who were as expensive to purchase as adults. East European children were in high demand, as were those European girls of childbearing age.

Intolerance. Europeans were intolerant of non-Catholic religions, of people who were different, and of the poor.

• Religious intolerance. There was no notion of religious toleration in Europe during this era. Every European nation had an established church that mandated what form of religious worship and belief were acceptable.
  • It was widely believed that public order was dependent on everyone believing the same thing about religion and practicing the same religious lifestyles. There was literally no thought of religion being a matter of private choice.
  • Any one who challenged the mandated form of religious worship faced persecution by both church authorities and the government that supported the church.
  • The challengers to Catholicism were particularly persecuted in 15th Century Spain - resulting in two events: The Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of Jews.
  • The Spanish Inquisition. Around 1480, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand established a religious court known as the Spanish Inquisition. Its proceedings were motivated by politics as well as religious (i.e., Catholic) beliefs. The court's proceedings were conducted with great severity. To extract information and confessions from defendants and witnesses, as well as to kill the condemned, the Inquisition used methods now considered barbaric, but which were used in most courts of the time: hanging on the gallows, burning at the stake, stretching on the rack, beheading, flaying alive, and drawing and quartering. Its severity was relaxed in the 17th Century and the Spanish Inquisition was finally abolished in 1834. Estimates of those executed for heresy - beliefs or opinions that disagreed with Catholic doctrine - during the three-and-a-half centuries range from 4,000 to 30,000.
• The Expulsion of the Spanish Jews. On the day Columbus sailed on his historic journey, the port of the city from which he sailed was filled with ships that were deporting Jews from Spain. In April, 1492, King Ferdinand issued an Edict in which he declared that no Jews were permitted to remain within the kingdom of Spain; however, any Jew who was willing to convert to Catholicism could remain. By the time the expulsion was complete, somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000 Jews had all their valuables confiscated and were then forcibly removed from their homes. One contemporary described the scene: It was pitiful to see their sufferings. Many were consumed by hunger, especially nursing mothers and their babies. Half-dead mothers held dying children in their arms...I can hardly say how cruelly and greedily they were treated by those who transported them. Many were drowned by the avarice of the sailors, and those who were unable to pay their passage sold their children". (As quoted in David Stannard, American Holocaust, 1992:62.)
• Intolerance of those who were different. As the historian Lawrence Stone has noted about 16th Century England, its villages were places "filled with malice and hatred, its only unifying bond being the occasional episode of mass hysteria, which temporarily bound together the majority in order to harry and persecute the local witch." (Stone, 1977:98-99)
  • The 16th Century witnessed a continent-wide witch-hunt. Communities, under direct guidance from the church, persecuted women who were most often unmarried or widowed. Between 1550-1650, in Germany, over 30,000 persecutions of alleged witches occurred.
  • In 16th century Switzerland, people in one small, remote area killed 3,300 people for allegedly Satanic crimes.
  • And in Wiesensteig, Germany 63 women - alleged witches - were burned to death in one year. (Norman Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Inquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt. NY: Basic Books, 1975:254.)
  • And who were these witches - women who did not adhere to the social, political, spiritual, and or economic status quo.
• Intolerance of the poor. As poverty became more widespread throughout Europe, communities became less tolerant of their lot. This was especially the case in England which, by the 17th century, saw three new developments in English policy on the poor:
  • Behaviors of the poor that had been somewhat acceptable under feudalism - gathering wood, pulling wool from sheep's back, pocketing a bit of grain - became criminalized.
  • The landless poor who traveled throughout England looking for work were looked upon as a social threat and a social problem. Thus, The Poor Act of 1598 defined migratory workers as a social threat and an economic liability to England. These "threats" and "problems" could - and were - be arrested and put in jail.
  • England began to make wage laborers out of the poor and put them to work building public projects.

Warfare. Largely as a result of the reformation, religious warfare became a regular feature of 16th Century Europe. Additionally, political and economic warfare wracked the continent. The most celebrated of these conflicts involved Spain and England in a religious, political, and economic battle.

• Ever since Henry VIII of England divorced his Spanish wife, Catherine of Aragon in 1527, tensions ran high between the monarchies. The staunchly Catholic Spanish monarchy wasted no time in denouncing the now Protestant England. The affronts remained verbal until the rule of Elizabeth.
• In the 1570s, Philip II of Spain, Elizabeth's brother-in-law and avid critic, sent 20,000 soldiers to the Netherlands to root out Protestantism. To counter the nearby threat, Elizabeth provided secret aid to Protestant rebels who supported a revolt against Spanish rule.
• In 1577, after formally allying herself with the Dutch, Elizabeth secretly authorized Francis Drake to attack Spanish ships in an area reserved in an earlier treaty (Treaty of Tordesillas) for Spain. Drake raided Spanish ships of their gold and silver and was consequently awarded a knighthood for his deeds.
• The situation was exacerbated in 1585 when Elizabeth sent 6,000 men across the Channel to aid the Dutch rebels and in 1586 when Drake continued to loot Spanish ships at sea and Spanish settlements in Santo Domingo and Cartagena.
• By the 1580s, Spain was still the most powerful and wealthy power in Europe - due primarily to its enormous inflow of wealth from the Americas. However, England and France were beginning to assert claims to the New World - and area where Spain had much to lose from English and French colonization.
• Thus, in 1585, Philip decided to invade England and immediately set out to create the largest marine force that the world had yet witnessed. In the spring of 1588, his armada of 132 warships carrying over 3,000 cannons and an invasion force of 30,000 men set out for England. In July, the Spanish Armada met English captains in the English Channel who had more maneuverable ships and also had to face a major storm. Half the Spanish ships were destroyed, their crews were killed or captured. Nonetheless, the war continued until 1604 when it became clear that the Spanish monopoly over the Americans had been broken.

An idealistic image of the "New World." Amid all these negative factors was one optimistic kernal of hope. Beginning in 1516 with Thomas More’s publication of Utopia about an idealistic imaginary island in the Western Hemisphere, some Europeans had an image of the New World where settlers could escape from the miseries of Europe and where they might experience some degree of freedom.

• The prevailing notion of freedom was that only those who controlled their own labor, which usually meant those who owned their own land, were truly free. Those who worked for wages were associated with servility and were not believed to be free.
• Thus, only a very few men - kings and their nobles who owned land - had any sense of personal freedom or individual identity.
• The image of the New World increasingly became one of a unique place of economic opportunity where the English laboring classes could find economic independence by acquiring land.

Goal #4: To understand the changing role of religion in 16th century Europe and how it impacted European immigration to the "New World"

Religions and religious affiliations have been evolving for thousands of years. In the last 2000 years, since the beginning of Christianity, we have witnessed many changes in religion - many of which have led to conflict and even war. To get a good idea of spread of religion over the past 5,000 years, consult this overview - http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html]

• For about 1,500 years, Christians in Western Europe mostly belonged to the Roman Catholic Church which was centered in Rome. The church was a major political and military power in Western Europe. The pope, as head of the church, was the spiritual leader and his views on religious doctrine were regarded as final. Consequently, popes used their power to defend and expand the church’s influence and wealth.
• Between 110 and 1500, the Church and the popes increased their power and control over the lives of Europeans by requiring tithes, taxes, church fees, and payments to support numerous clergymen. Those who could not pay their debts to the church were threatened with excommunication - the church would deny them the sacraments and other "works" necessary for saving their souls.
• Catholic priests were also very powerful in the lives of everyday Europeans. They led their congregations along the right path to understanding and discovering God's will through sermons, holding confessions, and celebrating Holy Mass. If anyone was going astray, it was the priest's job to bring them back to God. The priest, in short, interpreted the Bible and God's word for the people.
• Europeans Catholics were expected to observe the sacraments, confess their sins to priests, and perform various religious "works" as defined by their priests to assure their place in heaven.

This was the status of religion in Europe at the beginning of the 16th century. But it was greatly complicated by the political status in Europe. At the beginning of the 16th century, the political power of the kings was increasing in most Western European nations. As we have already learned, much of Europe was fragmented into many German principalities, duchies and cities, known collectively as the Holy Roman Empire.

• The Holy Roman Emperor tried to impose his authority over the Germans, but they remained largely independent.
• As the Catholic Church grew in power, and as the power of ambitious popes increased, many Germans believed the church took advantage of them.
• Germans complained that the church impoverished the common people while enriching Rome and many felt the church was more interested in wealth and power than in the spiritual needs of the people.
• Despite their grievances against the Roman Catholic Church, few people spoke out for fear of being excommunicated, or even burned at the stake as a heretic.
• Into this atmosphere of fear stepped a man who challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and brought about the end of Christian unity in Western Europe - Martin Luther, an obscure Catholic priest who lived in northern Germany and who changed the face of Europe forever.

Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.The Catholic church had taught Luther that people received salvation through their faith in God and their own good works on earth. But Luther felt he, and most ordinary people, were incapable of leading the kind of life that merited salvation.Luther turned to the Bible and gradually became convinced that God did not require men and women to earn salvation, but rather that salvation came by faith alone. Once people believed they had such faith, moral behavior was possible and salvation was inevitable

By 1517, Luther was especially troubled by an increasingly popular church practice - the selling of indulgences - a donation to the church that Catholics paid after confessing their sins to a priest and doing an assigned act of devotion.  The payment was made in place of  punishment for sins and secured forgiveness and a swift entry into heaven upon death.  Over time, it even became possible to purchase an indulgence for the dead. The Dominican Friar John Tetzel, who was in charge of selling indulgences in Germany, used this popular advertizing slogan to sell indulgences: "As soon as coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

On October 31, 1517, Luther nailed a copy of his “Ninety-Five Theses” to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, Germany. The Theses all related to Luther's dispute over the sale of indulgences. Word of Luther's Theses spread throughout the crowd that day and soon, many people called for their translation into German. A student copied Luther's Latin text and then translated the document and sent it to the university press; from there it spread throughout Germany. Later, Luther wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz protesting indulgences and explaining his criticisms of other church practices.

After receiving Luther's letter, the archbishop sent it to Pope Leo X.  Before the pope could react, however, the "Ninety-Five Theses" became a sensation among the German people who were stunned that Luther had challenged the pope and the church.  Luther took full advantage of the newest technology in Europe to inform Germans of his ideas - movable type printing press developed by Johann Gutenberg.  He and other pamphleteers who were increasingly called Protestants began publishing a steady stream of pamphlets criticizing the church. The Protestant Reformation had begun and soon began to spread throughout Europe. Protestants argued for the following reforms:

• priests should marry and have children;
• the number of sacraments should be reduced;
• Catholic mass should be held in German instead of Latin;
• priests should not live like parasites off the common people by avoiding hard work and not having to pay taxes; and
• the people themselves should choose their own  priests and decide how they believed based upon their own reading of the Bible

In January 1521, Pope Leo threatened to excommunicate Luther, but because he had become a hero to so many Germans, he instead agreed to summon him to an assembly of German nobles headed by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V.  There, all his books and pamphlets were piled before Luther.  After he admitted to writing them, he was asked to recant and subsequently refused.  Charles declared Luther  a heretic and an outlaw of the Holy Roman Empire.  Luther then went into hiding for a year when he wrote and published more pamphlets criticizing the church and began translating the New Testament into German so all literate persons could read the word of God for themselves.  He returned to Wittenberg in 1522 and continued to preach the first Protestant religion known as Lutheranism.  He died at the age of 63 in 1546.

During the 1520s, disputes arose between Luther and other Protestants over many religious issues.  For instance, the issue of whether or not infants should be baptized caused a formal split, with those disagreeing with Luther becoming known as the Anabaptists - those against infant baptism.  One of the biggest splits was between Luther and John Calvin.

John Calvin and Calvinism.  Calvin, a Frenchman,  believed that because man was helpless before an all-powerful God, there was no such thing as free will. Thus, man was predestined for either Heaven or Hell and could do nothing to alter his fate. He argued that while good works were not required to go to Heaven - as the Catholic Church decreed - good works did serve a purpose by acting as a divine sign that the individual was making the best of their life on earth. He further argued that some people had been "called" by God to do a certain thing on earth. Some men and women who seemed ill-fitted for life on earth were greedy, lazy and immoral. Others, however, were called - they seemed to work happily in their lifetime and accomplished a great deal. These people woke up early, worked hard at their calling, were thrifty, sober, and did not engage in frivolity - and in so doing, they acquired wealth. Certain men who were called were also imbued with the correct spirit of acquisition and therefore were destined to become wealthy. Such spirit eventually became known as the Protestant Work Ethic.

The Reformation in England and Puritanism.  In the early 16th century, England was a second-rate power torn apart of internal disunity.  Religion in England was reformed not by determined spiritual idealists like Luther and Calvin, but by a determined monarch.  King Henry VIII had been unable to produce a male heir to his throne by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon.  When Pope Clement VII refused Henry's request for an annulment, he divorced her without papal consent in 1527 and married his mistress, Anne Boleyn. Henry then established a new protestant church - the Church of England or Anglican Church - dissolved England's monasteries, seized all church lands and sold them to powerful members of the English gentry at bargain prices, and declared himself head of the new Church of England.

Thereafter, English Protestants were divided between the followers of the new Church of England and the Puritans, the "pure" Calvinists whose "divine plan" called for reforming the evils of society and limiting Church membership to the "elite." Decades of religious strife followed, beginning with Henry's son, Edward VI (1547-1553), who became king at the age of 10 and whose Protestant regents persecuted Catholics; continuing with the reign of his stepsister, Mary (1553-1558), a staunch Catholic who executed many Protestants; and ending with the rule of Elizabeth I (1558-1603) who restored Protestantism and executed over 100 Catholic priests. Her heir, James I (1603-1625) was committed to ridding England of the Puritan threat to the Church.

Results of the Protestant Reformation.

• Religious reform shattered the unity of European Christianity which had previously been Catholic:  Spain, Italy, and Ireland remained firmly Catholic; France, England, Scotland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands gained a substantial following for Calvinism; while Germany and Scandinavia became largely Lutheran.
• The competing religious loyalties that emerged resulted in brutal wars and internal uprising that wracked 16th Century Europe as Protestant and Catholic antagonists slaughtered each other in the name of Christianity.
• The legacy of religious strife intensified European interest in colonization. Many Europeans - especially the English - who embraced the new Protestant faiths - especially those with a Calvinist base - saw the "New World" as a safe haven for practicing their religion.

Goal #5: To discuss the expectations of Europeans who favored exploration to North America

• Monarchs hoped to expand their domestic and international power base by acquiring new overseas possessions. Spanish most successful in these endeavors, followed by French and English.
• Merchants hoped to attain a great degree of commercial success. The French (fur) and Spanish (gold) merchants were especially successful in this endeavor.
• Missionaries hoped to save souls. The Spanish and French Catholic missionaries were especially successful in gaining converts through exploration.
• Explorershoped to conquer and exploit new lands and, in the process, gain fame and wealth. Spanish and French most successful; English to a lesser degree.
  • Spanish explorers sought to open their own trade routes, discover vast quantities of gold, and conquer new lands for the Spanish crown and for their own personal wealth and glory. Only if a land worthy of economic exploitation was found would it be colonized. By 1609, they had gained the first European colonies in the Americas - Haiti, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Cuba; entered Central America and conquered the Aztecs; explored Florida and Arizona; built the first continuously-occupied European fort in what became the U.S.; and established a special missionary colony in New Mexico.
  • French explorers sought to expand their commercial trade industry and create a monopoly of the northern fur trade through the acquisition of overseas colonies. By the early 17th Century, they had gained control over their newly-discovered St. Lawrence River and its valleys: established the first French colony in North America - Nova Scotia; founded the town of Quebec for the inception of fur traffic; and developed a strong trading system among both the Indians and the European settlers.
  • English explorers sought to colonize new lands and bring new wealth to England; they gained fishing grounds in Newfoundland and after 1607, colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America and in Canada.
• Colonists in the 16th century were of two sorts:
  • Those who chose to immigrate to the "New World" and who sought an escape from the hard realities of life in Europe and wished to create new spiritual, social, economic, and political lives and lifestyles. These colonists mainly included
    • religious dissidents - especially the Protestant sects - and
    • peasants impoverished by the social and economic death of feudalism and who hoped to find economic freedom in North America.
  • Those who involuntarily immigrated to colonial North America. These colonists mainly included
    • criminals who were in jail and "transported" largely because they were poor and stole to feed themselves and their families, could not pay their debts, or prostituted themselves to stay alive;
    • Africans stolen from Africa for the slave trade in the Caribbean and indentured servitude in colonial North America; and
    • poor and orphaned children, as well as impoverished adults, who were "spirited" away or what became known as "kidnapping" - the practice of taking "the idle, lazie, simple people they can intice, such as have professed idlenesse, and will rather beg than work; who are perswaded by these Spirits, they shall goe into a place where food shall drop into their mouthes: and being thus deluded, they take courage, and are transported." (Brooks: 37-38)

Goal #6: To address the question, "why does any of this matter?"

There is a very easy answer for this rather complex question - because it tells us a great deal about who we are today!!

1. It tells us that the first waves of European immigrants to the "New World" were largely people no longer wanted or welcome in Europe - so called "disposable people" who were forced to carve out a new life in an unfriendly environment and dedicated to the idea that hard working, Protestants could, as individuals, create a better life for themselves.
2. It tells us that immigrants to America came from diverse social, religious, economic, and political backgrounds. Thus, America was never really a "melting pot" where people blended together to form a common American community.   Rather, thousands of individuals with different ideas about EVERYTHING settled here. And not surprisingly, we are still that multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-racial nation in which individualism is still the norm.
3. It tells us that those who left England to begin their lives in the "New World" had  similar objectives - to escape hardships, achieve economic betterment, find some sort of political, economic, and religious freedom -  but they had very different backgrounds and very different ideas of how to achieve their objectives. Today, the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who continue to seek asylum in the United States migrate for the same reasons.
4. It tells us that the ideas we had at the beginning of this course about how and why the earliest European Americans came to America were rather simplistic. Instead, learning more details about who the Europeans were and why they came to North America helps us better understand our major course theme - American history is full of controversy, conflict, and compromise - as well as five other of our course themes:
   • Freedom is never free.
   • Ordinary and extraordinary people make history.
   • The diverse nature of American society makes us unique among nations.
   • Dissent and protest are essential ingredients of American history.
   • Progress is not always progressive
   
   

1. By the late 15th century, the English King, as well as his nobles and knights, were less interested in the old feudal relationships whereby land and agriculture were the heart and soul of the economy. Instead, a whole new economic system developed around capital and commercialism. What resulted was a profound economic transformation whereby the King allowed his nobles and knights to convert their lands and lease them for "improvement" so that they could use the profits from the new leases to finance commercial, industrial, and colonial ventures.
2. The consequences of this economic transformation were dramatic: the landlords', knights', and peasants' relationship to the land dramatically changed; the land itself was physically altered through various economic "improvements;" a new "permanent proletariat" of landless laborers arose in England; mercantilism became the economic foundation of the English economy; and social, political, and economic inequality greatly increased. In short, the social, political, and economic lives of the vast majority of English men and women were dramatically changed by the end of feudalism and the origin of mercantilism.
3. Life in 14th, 15th, and 16th Century Europe was characterized by a social, political, and economic inequality; a fragile good supply and famine; poor health and living conditions; an uncertain economy; overpopulation; dangerous standards of living; child victimization; intolerance of those who were different; religious strife; and warfare.
4. The legacy of religious strife intensified European interest in colonization. Many Europeans - especially the English - who embraced the new Protestant faiths - especially those with a Calvinist base - saw the "New World" as a safe haven for practicing their religion.
5. The 16th century colonists to the "New World" were of two sorts: those who chose to immigrate to the "New World" and who sought an escape from the hard realities of life in Europe and wished to create new spiritual, social, economic, and political lives and lifestyles and those who involuntarily immigrated to colonial North America. The resulting religious, economic, social, and political diversity of these immigrants, it is clear that early America was not a "melting pot".

How the Empire Builders of WWI brought you ISIS

Just over 100 years ago, World War I erupted in the European continent. Four and a half years later when it was finally over and "peace" prevailed, the victors had dramatically changed the world. These complex changes - the subject of today's discussion - laid the foundation for the chaos currently tearing Iraq and Syria apart - as well as many other regions of the Middle East. So in order to really understand the current violence and terror in Syria and Iraq, we must move back through history and learn about the complex controversies, conflicts, and compromises that have shaped this region. In so doing, it is my hope that you will clearly see how and why history matters to each of you, today, in the 21st Century.

To get to this history, we are going to address a series of questions:

• What is the recent history leading up to the current crisis?
• What is happening today in Iraq and Syria?
• What is the Islamic State/ISIS, what does it want, and why has it been so successful?
• How and why is this related to history?
• What finally happened at the end of World War I?
• Today, why does this history matter? Or does it?

Question #1: What is the recent history leading up to the current crisis?

Long before the March, 2003 American invasion of Iraq, problems existed between the Shi'a Arabs - the nation's largest religious group - and Sunni Arabs - the smaller religious group. While the minority Sunnis dominated economic and political life during the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, his government severely restricted or banned outright many Shi'a religious practices and conducted a brutal campaign agains Shi'a communities. When the Shi'a, American-backed Nouri al-Maliki came to power in 2006, the tides were reversed. For eight years, the majority Shi'a Arabs have received many advantages no longer available to the Sunni minority. And a kind of civil war has evolved between the two different branches of Islam.

Sunni discontent is not confined to Iraq. For the past five years, Syria has been involved in a violent civil war between government forces of Syria's Shi'a backed President Bashar al-Assad, anti-government rebels who began as pro-democracy protestors, Kurdish rebels, and the Sunni Islamist extremist fighters - ISIS - who have been moving in over the last two years. Sunni extremism in both Syria and Iraq eventually led to the creation of the Islamic State - formerly ISIS - or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. In early June 2014, ISIS began taking control over the Sunni portions of Iraq where close to 50,000 American trained Iraqi army officers and troops abandoned their weapons, shed their uniforms, and fled - leaving their sophisticated, American-bought weapons behind for ISIS. On June 29, 2014, ISIS renamed itself the Islamic State and then announced a plan to establish a single Islamic state - or caliphate - that would stretch from Syria down into Iraq.

Whether in Syria or Iraq, the Islamic State has brought violence to all non-Sunni peoples with whom they have come into contact. They have made it clear that only Sunnis who subscribe to Sharia law are welcome in the conquered areas. People who refuse to move are killed and those who move most often flee to refugee camps in Jordan, Iran, and Turkey. By the end of August, 2014. in addition to the deaths of unknown thousands of Iraqis and Syrians, the Islamic State had forced nearly 180,000 families, or more than one million people, from their homes.

Complicating the picture has been the substantial Kurdish population living in Northern Iraq and Syria. As early as 1919, the Kurds - who had been part of the Ottoman Empire - had asked for an independent nation. However, in 1923 they were instead incorporated into the new country of Turkey, as well as in parts of Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

Thus, the Kurds living in all four countries have been struggling for independence for over 90 years. In 1970, Iraqi Kurds came closer to that goal than ever before after they reached and agreement with the Iraqi government that they can actually govern semi-autonomously. Iraqi Kurdistan is defined as the three northeastern provinces of Dohuk, Erbil, and Sulaymaniyah, although they also occupy and claim parts of the oil-rich Kirkuk province.

Each of the four largest Kurdish communities have faced serious oppression under the governments in which they exist. Thus, Kurdish soldiers called peshmerga ( "those who face death") work to defend the Kurds against such oppression. However, when faced with the threat from the Islamic State, the peshmerga began to lose ground - that is, until the United States entered the picture through direct arms transfers to the peshmerga and the current drone air strikes.

Question #2: What is happening today in Iraq and Syria?

By early August 2014, the Islamic State had conquered vast areas in Iraq's Anbar Province - including key areas around Fallujah and Baghdad - as well as Mosul. It then moved into Kurdish territory that spreads across the northern parts of both Iraq and Syria. By the end of the year, the Islamic State had conquered areas around Kirkuk and Sinjar in Iraq and Aleppo in Syria.

On August 8, President Obama announced that it would begin air strikes over the Islamic State occupied areas in Iraq, especially around Mount Sinjar, Mosul Dam, and Erbil. Between August 8 and American fighter jets and drones attacked over 70 targets in northern Iraq as shown in the map below. On August 20, the United States experienced the first retaliation from the Islamic State with the release of a videotape showing the beheading of captured American journalist, Jim Foley. In the tape, the British-accented member of the Islamic State warned President Obama that more violence was on the way if the U.S. continued its air strikes. In response to the tape, Germany, Britain, and Italy all made statements indicating that they will begin providing some sort of assistance to the American efforts as well as aid to the Kurdish.

By the end of 2014, ISIS had carved out a sprawling territory across Iraq and Syria with military dominance over 126 key places. But the group’s momentum has slowed throughout 2016 and it has lost its hold on nearly half of those locations. The group has been forced out of about 56 places where it once had control, including five major cities. By the end of 2016, ISIS had lost over 45 percent of its territory in Syria and 20 percent in Iraq since the peak of its control in August 2014.

As it has slowly been squeezd out of Iraq and Syria, there are signs that ISIS is shifting its focus from controlling territory to executing terror attacks in Iraq and abroad.

After looking at the maps and learning just some very basic information about the current crisis, two things are absolutely crystal clear:

• Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Kurds all have one thing in common - they were all parts of the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago.
• Despite the fact the ISIS is losing territory it once controlled, it has effectively destroyed the borders of Syria and Iraq - borders, as we shall learn, that were artifically created by the British victors of World War I.

Question #3: What is the Islamic State/ISIS, what does it want, and why has it been so successful?

ISIS was initially formed in 2004 as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who pledged his allegiance to al-Qaeda. In its current form, ISIS was founded in Iraq in October 2006 with Abu Omar al-Baghdadi at its head. Soon thereafter, ISIS claimed responsibility for many operations against U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as for car bombs in Baghdad and in Shi’a areas of Iraq. In April 2010, after Baghdadi was assassinated, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the leader of ISIS and continued his predecessor's battle against the Iraqi government. In late 2013, ISIS broke with al-Qaeda because it had a different and more extreme goal - capturing the Sunni portions of Syria and Iraq to establish the caliphate.

And what is the caliphate as envisioned by the Islamic State? A caliphate ("succession" in Arabic) is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph ("successor") to Muhammad. Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually known as caliphates. Contemporarily, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful - known as the Ummah - who are ruled by a caliph under strict Islamic law- sharia. Laws, then, for the Sunni Muslims living under the Caliphate, are made by God - as set forth in the Koran - not by the people.

According to Sunni Muslims, four Caliphates existed from 632-1924. The last Caliphate was under the Ottoman Empire and existed from 1517-1924. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the wake of World War I, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk officially abolished the system of Caliphate in Islam and founded the Republic of Turkey.

Today, the Caliphate is a dream of a single empire that would unite all the Sunni Muslims of the world. Upon claiming the new Caliphate on June 29, 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared himself the new Caliph, saying that his lineage can be traced back to tribe of Mohammed. He has commanded all Sunni Muslims to become supporters and citizens of a new transnational state governed by sharia law. To date, al-Bahdadi claims the Caliphate includes the Sunni-captured regions of Syria and Iraq. However, he has indicated at various times that the Caliphate eventually would expand into Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Southern Turkey.

Philip Jenkins, a religious history professor at Baylor University and author of The Great and Holy War: How World War I Became a Religious Crusade explains that ISIS is trying to establish themselves symbolically as the leading force in reviving Islam. In so doing, "it almost limits the status of Muslim to absolute true believers who go along with ISIS ... The modern Caliphate is not just saying that Shi'a aren't real Muslims, they’re saying that many Sunnis aren't real Muslims either. They'd say any Sunni who doesn’t go along with them is not a real Muslim." (See "What is the Caliphate, Exactly?" from the Boston Globe on July 6, 2014.)

In 2014, the Islamic State forces were estimated at 20,000 - 35,000. By early 2016, the numbers had declined from estimates of 19,000 - 25,000. However, it is clear that the influence of the Islamic State is growing as it continues to reach out to Sunni Muslims around the world. In mid-June 2014, three members of the Islamic State, all speaking with British accents, issued a professionally edited recruitment video in which they explain all the spiritual and emotional benefits of joining the Sunni jihad in Syria and Iraq. The group's appeal has been successful; we have estimates that about 100 Americans and perhaps as many as 500 British citizens have joined Islamic State extremists in their struggle.

Ultimately, the success of the Islamic State is largely built upon the rising discontent and violence between the Sunni and Shia - not just in Syria and Iraq, but anywhere in the world. Many of the Sunni minority have joined or supported ISIS after suffering discrimination in Iraq and Syria. But it's real success is staggering - a relatively small group of Sunni extremists calling themselves the Islamic State has destroyed the borders of two 21st century nations - Syria and Iraq. How and why this happened is key to our story of why history matters.

Question #4: How and why is this related to history?

The chaos in Iraq and Syria today is directly related to the decisions of British and French - and to some degree American - empire builders who carved up the defeated the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Yet few Americans ever learn about these early 20th century men and the nations they represented, their decisions, and how such decisions dramatically influence our 21st century world.

Our story begins with the Ottoman Empire - which was also the last Caliphate. For centuries, the Ottomans were the protectors of the Islamic faith and presided over the holy sites of Islam. A careful reading of the map below gives us a better understanding of the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War I - 100 years ago.

• What does the map tell us about the history of the Ottoman Empire?
• What does the map tell us about the status of the Ottoman Empire when war broke out in 1914?

The Ottoman Empire contained a diverse populuation. According to the official census taken in 1906, about 76.09% were Muslims (Turks, Arabs, and Kurds), 13.86% were Greeks, 5.07% were Armenians, 3.74% were Bulgarians, 1.24 percent were Jews, 0.26 percent were Christian, and 1.59 percent were "others."

In 1914, then, the ethnically and religiously diverse Ottoman Empire was crumbling while the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, British, and French Empires were flourishing. Indeed, toward the end of the 19th Century, each of these empires - with the exception of Germany - had grown at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. When war broke out, the empires were carefully aligned.

• What does the map tell you about the reasons why the Ottoman Empire joined Germany and Austria in World War I rather then the Allies - Britain, France, and Russia?
• Why would Britain be interested in carving out colonies from the Ottoman Empire? France? Russia?

Almost immediately after the war began, Britain and France began to discuss how the Ottoman Empire would be carved up between them after they won the war. But they were not the only ones with hopes for what would become known as "The Big Loot." As the war got underway, what did the European powers hope to gain?

• Britain wanted the region extending to both borders of the Suez Canal. They hoped to immediately and permanently gain control of that area in order to guarantee passage through the Canal to their rich colonial lands in India.
• France, which had been the protector of the Catholic population in the Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire for over 300 years, wanted all of Syria.
• Russia wanted control over Constantinople (Istanbul) which was the gateway to the Mediterranean Sea and the key to acquiring a warm water port.

The war, then, from beginning to end, was always about "The Big Loot." And the men making the decisions about the loot were largely British and French who were on a "civilizing mission," believing that the Arabs and other people in the Ottoman Empire were incapable of governing themselves and would greatly benefit from their "enlightened" political and economic ideas.

In addition to expanding their political and economic influence into new colonial regions, the empire builders were well aware of both tapped and untapped oil resources that were located in the exact regions they hoped to control - especially Syria and Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq). But they weren't the only ones with their eyes on the prize. The Americans - especially those under the corporate leadership of John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil - were also very interested in gaining control over potential oil fields. The competition for oil resources was well underway by the time the war broke out. Britain had been involved in a long-term dispute with the Dutch over control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf (Mesopotamia) and Baku (Russia). Standard Oil hoped to gain new fields - and in order to do so, they told both the Allied and Central Powers that they would help them supply their demands oil to fuel the new tank, automobile, and air technologies of World War I.

But to win the war, it was also clear to these empire builders that they would have to win over two populations in the Ottoman Empire - both of whom had different visions for "The Big Loot."

• Jewish Zionists, who had been migrating to Palestine for four decades, wanted a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
• Arabs, who made up the majority of the Ottoman Empire, wanted full sovereignty over a new Arab nation - a new Caliphate - extending east through current day Ira), west through Syria and all of Palestine, and south to the tip of the Arabian peninsula.

Meeting the needs of the Arabs, however, was complex and fraught with danger.While the Arabs hoped that after 400 years of Ottoman domination to finally escape Turkish rule and create a truly Arab caliphate, they were not united.

• For over 1300 years, the Sunni and Shi'a had been fighting over different interpretations of Islam.
• For over 200 years, two different Islamic sects had been fighting within the Arabian Peninsula for supremacy.
  • Sharif Hussein - the religious leader of the Muslim holy cities and shrines of Mecca and Medina and most of the area known as the Hejaz - hoped for the Arab nation described above.
  • Ibn Saud - a religious leader of the Wahabi sect in Arabia and avowed rival of Hussein - also hoped for an Arab nation in much of Arabia.

Keeping all the potential land mines in their sight, the British and French empire makers created at least five major plans designed to reshape the Ottoman Empire:

• The First Plan - Britain and Russia, March 1915. Britain and Russia signed a secret agreement in which Russia would annex the Ottoman capital of Constantinople(current day Istanbul) and retain control of the Dardanelles - the crucially important strait that would connect Russia to the Mediterranean - and the Gallipoli peninsula. In return, the British were to claim control over other areas of the former Ottoman Empire and central Persia, including the oil-rich region of Mesopotamia.

• The Second Plan - Britain and Sharif Hussein, July 1915-January 1916. The secret letters known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence between Sharif Hussein and Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, resulted in an agreement whereby a small faction of Ottoman Arabs under Hussein agreed to fight with Britain against the Ottomans. In return, the British promised that after the war, Hussein would be given his own Arab kingdom covering the entire Arabian Peninsula, including Palestine, Syria and Iraq. Hussein followed through with his agreement in what became known as the Arab Revolt of 1918.

• The Third Plan - Britain and France, May 1916. Two aristrocratic empire builders master-minded a secret agreement to divide up the Ottoman Empire. Mark Sykes representing the British government and Francois Georges-Picot representing the French government created a map consisting largely of somewhat straight lines that divided the Ottoman Empire into two different spheres of influence - one for the French and one for the British. This secret agreement was made without any knowledge of the Arab peoples.The Sykes-Picot Agreementredrew the boundaries of the former Ottoman empire and in so doing, created what would become known as the Middle East. The agreement:
  • Arbitrarily divided Ottoman lands into British - Transjordan, Sinai Desert, and Iraq - and French - Syria and Lebanon - controlled regions with lines drawn without consideration of the ethnic, religious, and tribal groups in the area.
  • In their designated spheres, each country could establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they thought fit to arrange with the Arabs .
  • Provided for international administration of Palestine.
  • Gave Britain and France free passage and trade in the other's zone of influence.

• The Fourth Plan - Britain and ibn Saud, 1916. The British offered Saud the middle of the Arabian Peninsula for their wartime support.

• The Fifth Plan - Britain and the Jewish Zionists, November 1917.On November 2nd, the British Foreign Secretary, Alfred Balfour, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, a leader in the Zionist community declaring official support of the British government for the Zionist movement's goals to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in return for Jewish support of the British during the war: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The bottom line - the British empire builders - with help from the French - were willing to do whatever they had to in order to win the war and to divide up "The Big Loot." And that included making many different and conflicting agreements with different groups promising different political futures for the peoples of the former Ottoman Empire.

• Sharif Hussein expected an Arab kingdom, including Palestine.
• Ibn Saud expected an Arab kingdom somewhere in the Arabian peninsula.
• The Zionists expected to settle in and rule the land of Palestine.
• The French expected to rule over the same land the British had promised Hussein.

Question #5: What finally happened at the end of World War I?

The consequences of the War were devastating.

• Four of the six great imperial powers that existed at the beginning of the war completely disappeared: the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
• While official agencies did not keep careful accounting of civilian losses, it is believed that as many as 13,000,0000 non-combatants died as a direct or indirect result of the war.
• Millions of persons were uprooted from their homes in Europe and the former Ottoman Empire.
• Property and industrrial losses were catastrophic, especially in France, Belgium, Poland, and Serbia, where fighting had been heaviest.

While the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919, the fate of the defeated Ottoman Empire was left to several other agreements between the victorious powers and members of the defeated Ottoman Empire:

1. The Pan-Syrian Congress was held on March 8, 1920 an acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation." Thus, delegates declared the existence of an independent Arab state of Syria that included Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and portions of northern Mesopotamia to be governed by King Faisal.
2. Treaty of Sèvres held on August 10, 1920 was intended to bring peace between the Allies and the Ottomans. The Allies agreed to the Kurdish desire to create an independent Kurdistan. But the treaty was not ratified, largely because the fight for Turkish independence had begun which brought the treaty discussions to an abrupt halt.
3. San Remo conference in April, 1920, signed by England, France, Italy, and Japan (with the United States as an observer), divided the Ottoman Empire empire into three mandates: Iraq, Syria and Palestine. The resolution also included the Balfour Declaration that called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The boundaries of the mandates were not declared and were left to be decided by the newly-created League of Nations. Thus began the Syrian and Iraqi quest for independence.
4. League of Nations mandates were decided in 1922. Each mandate was supposed to be ruled by the British or French "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Through the mandate system, the British and the French were able to get the control they wanted over the Middle East - the exact control they had decided in 1916 under the Sykes-Picot Agreement with one exception - Palestine was not to be an international zone but instead, fell under control of Britain. Thus began the Palestinian struggle for independence as well as the Jewish struggle for independence.
5. Treaty of Lausanne signed on July 24,1923 essentially ended WWI in what is now known as the Middle East. In the treaty, Turkey gave up all claims to the remainder of the Ottoman Empire and in return the Allies recognized Turkish sovereignty within its new borders. Included in the new Turkish state was the area the Kurds had been promised by the allies for an independent Kurdish state. Thus began the Kurdish struggle for independence.

And what is the bottom line of this "peace?"

1. The Jews and Arabs got nothing remotely resembling what had been promised to them by the British during the war.
   • Sharif Hussein and his sons were allowed to rule over these mandates under British "protection". While Prince Faisal was made king of Iraq and Syria and Prince Abdullah was made king of Jordan, the British and French had the only real authority over these areas.
   • The Palistinians did not get their state.
   • Not only did the Jews not get their state, they were only allowed to migrate and settle in Palestine in very limited numbers. This angered both the Zionists and the Arabs: the Jews were forced to resort to illegal ways to immigrate over the next three decades and the Arabs saw any increased immigration as threat to their land.
2. The Kurds did not receive independence, despite a promise by the Allies and a nod from Woodrow Wilson. Instead, they were incorporated into the newly created nation of Turkey.
3. The British empire builders largely created the modern Middle East.

And what have been the consequences over the past 100 years?

1. The complex controversies, conflicts and compromises involved in British agreements during and after World War I and the subsequent countries that were created served a purpose - to disunite Muslims from each other. And such disunification led to almost 100 years of political instability throughout the Middle East.
   • The post World War I borders were drawn without regard for the wishes of the people living there and without recognizing the ethnic, geographic, or religious boundaries within the former Ottoman Empire.
   • Thus, the differences between Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, etc. were entirely created by the European colonizers as a method of dividing the Arabs against each other.
2. The main goal of Arab politics for the 30 years after WWI became getting rid of the colonial governments, rather than focusing on building functional governments that could meet the needs of their diverse people. At a time when Arab people could have faced the identity struggle between them - nationalism and secularism on the one hand, versus Islamism and sharia rule on the othr hand - they were instead embroiled in efforts to oust the colonizers.
3. Once the colonial governments ended - Iraq in 1932, Jordan in 1946, Syria in 1946, and Israel in 1948 - a wave of Arab nationalism arose. This gave rise to the idea that a united Arab world would dilute the socio-economic, political, and religious differences between its populations.
• Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, Arab dictators like Hafez Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi suppressed these differences, often with immense brutality. But the tensions and differences neither disappeared nor were diluted.
• By the turn of the 21st Century, cracks began to appear in these countries - cracks that highlighted the socio-economic, political, and religious differences that had been concealed for decades.
4. The wave of Arab uprisings beginning in 2011 is this generation's attempt to change the consequences of the empire building that took shape during and after World War I.
   • The Arab world has doubled its population over the last four decades to over 330 million people, two-thirds of whom are under 35 years old.
   • This generation has inherited the consequences of growing socio-economic, religious, and political problems - especially education quality, job availability, and economic prospects,
5. The divisions that the British instituted in the Muslim world remain strong today, despite being created by empire builders almost 100 years ago. Thus, in the 21st Century, we are still dealing with the political mess that Britain created. And, according to many experts, that mess may very well lead us back into a war in Iraq.
6. The contemporary problems in the Middle East have been many years in the making and it will take many more years before they can be resolved. There are no easy solutions to the complexities that have shaped the Middle East. No one nation - especially not the United States - can "save" Syria and Iraq. This sentiment is best expressed in the 2006 film, Blood and Oil: The Middle East and World War I:

   "In redrawing the map of the Middle East for the benefit of Western political and economic aims, and in selecting pro-western leaders to rule Muslims of various cultures and religious beliefs, Europe guarantees that the future of the Middle East will be plagued by civil strife, regional wars, and foreign occupation. The key ingredient for political stability - legitimacy - has been largely destroyed by a Western fabrication that ignored the history and traditions of the Middle East." (Blood and Oil: The Middle East and World War I available online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0evPEsc30)

7. The big question facing the world today is should the arbitrary borders imposed by European powers be replaced with new borders along the region's problemmatic religious divide? While the idea - shown below in one hypothetical map of the region - is probably unworkable, this is already what ISIS has been creating. Today, the Iraqi government controls the country's Shia-majority east, Sunni Islamist extremists have seized much of western Iraq and eastern Syria, the Syrian government controls the country's Shia- and Christian-dominated west, and the Kurds, are legally autonomous in Iraq and functionally so in Syria.

Question #6: Today, why does this history matter? Or does it?

I would like to leave this question up to you. Please turn to 2-3 people near you and ask each other this question. After 3-4 minutes, we will come back as a class to discuss your responses.

Selected Sources:

• Anderson, Scott, Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East. New York, Anchor Books: 2014.
• British Broadcasting Company (BBC) Website - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553
• BBC Video- Making of the Middle East
  • Episode 1 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03kqbqj
  • Episode 2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03lpfwk
  • Episode 3 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03m79cg
  • Episode 4 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03mfvl3
• CBSDC, " U.S. Officials: Video Shows Beheading Of American Journalist" - http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/19/u-s-authenticating-isis-video-
• Englehardt, Tom, "Who Won Iraq" at http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/6683/31/Who-won-Iraq-.aspx
• Global Post, "In the Land of Cain and Abel" - http://www.globalpost.com/special-reports/the-land-cain-and-abel-sunni-shia-islam
• Harvard University, Institute of Politics, "The Plight of Syrian Kurds" - http://www.iop.harvard.edu/plight-syrian-kurds
• Jenkins, Philip, The Great and Holy War: How World War I Became a Religious Crusade
• Newton-Small, Jay, Time, "Kurds welcome U.S. Help in Iraq but remember history of betrayal,"at http://time.com/3103537/kurds-iraq-erbil-barzani-isis/
• New York Times, "The Iraq-ISIS Conflict in Maps, Photos, and Videos" - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-iraq-isis-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html
• The Conversation, "How has Iraq lost a third of its territory to ISIS in three days?" - http://theconversation.com/how-has-iraq-lost-a-third-of-its-territory-to-isis-in-three-days-27933
• The History Channel - http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-and-france-conclude-sykes-picot-agreement
• Vox, "6 Essential Facts about Iraq's Kurds" - http://www.vox.com/2014/8/12/5991425/kurds-iraq-kurdistan-peshmerga
• Yergin, Daniel, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, & Power. New York, Free Press: 1991.

The 1970s and the 1980s: The Decline of Liberalism and the Triumph of Conservatism

No story in which one examines the history of late 19th and 20th Century America can be complete without an understanding of two terms that dominate the 21st Century political world - liberal and conservative. Let's get one perspective on the difference between liberals and conservatives:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTd34VM8FRI and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by3zJrWKVvo

Discussion:

• What is the perspective about liberals from these two videos?
• Do you think this is a fair analysis"
• Do you think this would be a good indicator of what many voters believed in the 2016 Presidential election?

Goals: The 1970s and the 1980s: The Decline of Liberalism and the Triumph of Conservatism

1. To discuss the characteristics of modern liberalism and conservatism and to compare and contrast the terms.
2. To understand the decline of liberalism in the 1970s and how it contributed to the triumph of conservatism in the 1980s.
3. To learn about the Election of 1980 that brought about the end of liberalism and the rise of conservatism.
4. To understand Ronald Reagan, the man, as well as Ronald Reagan, the politician.
5. To learn what happened to the economy, to the role of the federal government, and to U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan Presidency.
6. To examine the legacy of Ronald Reagan’s conservatism in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries
7. To understand the most controversial aspect of the Reagan Presidency - the Iran-Contra Affair.

Goal #1: To discuss the characteristics of modern liberalism and conservatism and to compare and contrast the terms.

Liberal - Derived from Middle English term liberalis, meaning befitting free men. Also the Latin term liber meaning freedom .

• Adjective = broad-minded, favorable to progress or reform.
• Noun = a person with broad-minded, progressive views, especially in politics or religion.

While liberal thought has a long history, modern liberal thought began with the Enlightenment by rejecting many earlier theories of government - The Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion. Early liberal movements opposed absolute monarchy and various kinds of religious orthodoxy while endorsing new concepts of individual rights under the rule of law - classical liberalism.

• Classical liberalism – emphasizes the belief that laissez faire capitalism based on little to no governmental interference in the economy will promote individual liberty. First articulated by John Locke (1632-1704) who described two fundamental ideas behind the idea of individual liberty:
  • economic liberty – the right to own and use property; and
  • intellectual liberty – the right to intellectual freedom of thought and conscience.
• Social liberalism - emphasizes the belief that because unregulated laissez faire capitalism and the profit motive can cause inequality of wealth, a stronger central government is necessary to protect individual liberty from the perceived excesses of capitalism.
  • John Maynard Keynes was one of the strongest proponents of social liberals.
  • By the end of the 19th century, some liberals asserted that in order to be free, individuals needed access to food, shelter, and education and they also needed governmental protection against exploitation.
  • Then, during the Great Depression, the public's faith in laissez faire capitalism declined and many began to believe that unregulated markets could neither produce prosperity nor prevent poverty -

Conservative - Derived from Middle English term conserven,meaning to save, guard, preserve.

• Adjective = marked by moderation or caution.
• Noun = a person with moderate or cautious views, especially in politics or religion.

• Classical conservatism - emphasizes the belief that the proper purpose of government is to allow men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said in his first Inaugural Address, "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
• Russell Kirk in "The Essence of Conservation" wrote in 1957:

  "A conservative is not, by definition, a selfish or a stupid person; instead, he is a person who believes there is something in our life worth saving. Conservatism, indeed, is a word with an old and honorable meaning - but a meaning almost forgotten by Americans until recent years ... Conservatism, then, is not simply the concern of the people who have much property and influence; it is not simply the defense of privilege and status. Most conservatives are neither rich nor powerful. But they do, even the most humble of them, derive great benefits from our established Republic ... Conservatism is not simply a defense of capitalism... But the true conservative does stoutly defend private property and a free economy, both for their own sake and because these are means to great ends. Those great ends ... involve human dignity, human personality, human happiness. They involve even the relationship between God and man."

Liberals and Conservatives compared

Goal #2: To understand the decline of liberalism in the 1970s and how it contributed to the triumph of conservatism in the 1980s

Factors leading to the decline of liberalism in the 1970s: While historians are still debating the factors that brought about a decline in liberalism in the late 1960s and the1970s, these are the main reasons that most agree upon:

• The Kennedy administration’s failure to challenge the USSR about the construction of the Berlin Wall.

• The Johnson administration’s Civil Rights legislation and the War on Poverty. 
  • Many middle class Southern Democrats abandoned the Democratic Party because they associated it with Civil Rights legislation, support of the counter-culture, and an emphasis of providing federal assistance to the disadvantaged and minorities. 
  • As Ronald Reagan famously said during the 1980 election, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; it left me.

• The failure of the Democratic and Republican Parties to “stay the course” in Vietnam. "Stay the course" is a term popularized by Ronald Reagan and later used by George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush which means to pursue a goal regardless of any obstacles or criticism.

• The Republican Party's disgrace by the mainstream presidencies of Nixon and Ford.  Many conservatives believed Nixon and Ford had been too liberal and what the nation needed was a return to conservative leadership.
  • Nixon disgraced the party with Watergate.
  • Nixon reversed the Cold War policy of containment and instead fostered the policies of détente (French meaning "release of tensions") that advanced the improvement of Cold War relations with the USSR and China. Nixon's detente policy was perceived by many Republicans to be "soft on communism."
• Ford signed the Helsinki Agreement in 1975 - in which the U.S. recognized Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe in return for the Soviet agreement to observe international human rights principles - and conservatives saw it as an act of appeasement.

• The foreign policies of the Carter Administration that many conservatives thought were both liberal and dangerous:
  • Carter was perceived as  “..weak and soft, a wimp more interested in human rights than national security, and more concerned about arms control than weapons development.”  (Diggins, p. 160).
  • Carter was perceived as “soft on communism,” especially:
    • In a speech at the University of Notre Dame when he told Americans to get over their “inordinate fear of communism.” 
    • When he recognized the Chinese government and cut diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In his televised speech to the American people, Carter revealed that the U.S. and Communist China had secretly and suddenly decided to end nearly 30 years of warlike estrangement. The two countries would establish normal diplomatic relations on Jan. 1.
    • When he gave up the Panama Canal after heated debate and many Republicans felt that Panamanian communists were behind the Canal liberation movement.
  • Carter ignored the new, escalated phase of the Cold War in which detente was over and the USSR extended its interest into the third world nations and into uprisings in the Middle East.
    • The Russian invasion of Afghanistan (1979)
    • The downfall of the Shah in Iran (early 1979.)
    • The taking of American hostages in Iran (November 4, 1979).

• The domestic policies of the Carter administration. On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration.
  • The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976,  to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and 12% in 1980.
  • Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the 1979 deficit totaled $27.7 billion and the 1980 deficit was nearly $59 billion.
  • In 1980, 8 million people were out of work.

In short, by the late 1970s, many Americans no longer trusted their government.

• They were mired in pessimism that arose from five previously flawed or failed presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter).
• They were tired of actual or perceived liberal leadership since the New Deal (five democratic presidents = FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter versus three republican presidents - Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.)
• They longed to re-embrace American exceptionalism.
• Some of these dissatisfied Americans were Democrats, some were mainstream Republicans, and some were disgruntled conservatives.

Americans were ready for a change - for an end to liberal leadership, especially in the Presidency, and for the beginning of conservative leadership. And that was what guided the election of 1980.

Goal #3: To learn about the Election of 1980 that brought about the end of liberalism and the rise of conservatism.

Throughout the 1970s, conservatives were developing their agenda. They knew that by mid-decade, Americans were not quite ready for a real change. What they needed to bring them back to the Executive branch was a Democrat with a failed domestic and foreign policy to come into power – and as we have seen, Jimmy Carter provided just that. Thus, Ronald Reagan ran for the Presidency at a time when Americans were ready for change - change built solidly upon modern conservatism and a rejection of social liberalism.

Because the Carter team did not have a strong record, it decided its only chance for reelection was to go after Reagan by painting him as a wild-eyed conservative ideologue who could not be trusted to maintain the peace. For several months, the strategy worked and it appeared that by September, Carter would win.So what happened? Two things:

1. The only televised debate between the candidates.
   • The Carter campaign pursued a debate withReagan because they thought it would give the president a chance to display his great command of complex issues, and that Reagan might stumble or look confused. Only when the Reagan camp saw how tight the race was did they agree to debate at all.
   • However, rather than sounding dangerous or overwhelmed, Reagan calmly brushed aside Carter's attacks, shaking his head and saying,"There you go again." In his closing statement, Reagan brilliantly framed the election in his favor: "It might be well if you ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago?" If so, he said, vote for four more years of Carter; if not, "I could suggest another choice that you have."
2. Carter's failure to get the Iranian hostages released. Unfortunately for Carter, the 1980 election coincided with the one-year anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran. Many Americans blamed him for the ongoing crisis - and they showed their anger at the polls.

Thus, the results of the 1980 Election was a landslide victory for Reagan and the beginning of 12 years of conservative leadership in the White House. In fact, many people called the election the beginning of the “Reagan Revolution.”

Goal #4 - To understand Ronald Reagan, the man, as well as Ronald Reagan, the politician

The dozens of biographies that have been written about Ronald Reagan fail to agree about many things - especially the degree to which he was or was not an effective president. But there is one thing about which all authors agree - Reagan the man shaped Reagan the politician.

What are the most important points to know about Ronald Reagan, the Man?

• His early family life was chaotic - his father was Irish Catholic and had a serious drinking problem, while his mother was an evangelical Christian. They moved from place to place during his early years while his father took various jobs. They settled in Dixon, Illinois when he was 9 - which for the first time in his life, brought much stability.
• Both parents had a role in shaping the man Reagan would become - his father's alcoholism and allegiance to the Democratic Party and his mother's absolute allegiance to evangelical Christianity.
• Reagan had reason to be optimistic and believe in the American Dream - after graduating during the Depression from a small Bible College in Illinois, Reagan had a dream of becoming a radio sports broadcaster, but he had no experience. Nonetheless, he managed to get a job and within four years, he became one of the most celebrated sports broadcasters in the Midwest.
• In 1937, he moved to Hollywood to begin working for Warner Brothers - thereby achieving another success story in the American Dream.
  • In Hollywood, he had an average career.
  • He joined and eventually became president of the actor's union - the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG)
  • Became involved in pro-Roosevelt, Democratic Party politics.
• In 1947, Reagan became disillusioned with the Democratic Party which he believed was now driven by high taxes that helped to support big government. After he was approached by FBI agents, Reagan agreed to become an informant for the FBI - to identify communists within SAG.
• In 1954, General Electric asked Reagan to serve as master of ceremonies for a new, half-hour weekly television show, GE Theater. As part of his contract, Reagan toured all 185 G.E. plants across the nation where he increasingly found himself in conservative economic and political environments where audiences eagerly responded to his attacks on taxes and wasteful government spending and regulations.
• In 1964, the Republican Party asked Ronald Reagan to give a 30-minute prime time speech as a former Democrat turned Republican and to endorse the conservative agenda of Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater - the "A Time for Choosing" speech. This was his formal and official switch to the conservative agenda that would characterize his politics as two-term Governor for California and then as a two-term President of the U.S.
• In 1966, Reagan won the election for Governor of California after winning 55 of its 58 counties.  His campaign emphasized two main themes:
  • A plan "to send the welfare bums back to work", and
  • A plan "to clean up the mess at Berkeley" by ending the anti-war and anti-establishment student protests at the University of California at Berkeley.
  • He easily won a second term in 1970.
• In 1975, Reagan left office and immediately focused on his plan to run for President of the United States.

What are the most important things to know about Ronald Reagan the politician? The events in Ronald Reagan's life prior to his political career had a deep influence on the following beliefs that shaped his role as a politician.

• American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny - The U.S. - the best country in the world with the best people - is on a divinely appointed mission to serve as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world.
• Consistent optimism - "History was destined to have a happy ending"  - just like the movies in which he starred. 
• American Dream - Americans lived in a nation where anything was possible and where the American Dream was available to anybody who wanted it. 
• Protestantism - Americans need not be held back by strict, Calvinistic religious doctrines but instead, should pursue "a life of good works and charity." God was benevolent and forgiving.
• Economic liberty  - Americans should be free to do what they wished economically. He believed that economic freedom was far different from that of the Democrats - especially New Deal democrats who believed that economic freedom required the federal government to combat poverty, increase economic security for all Americans, and bolster the purchasing power of all Americans.
  • Reagan's economic policy was firmly grounded in traditional laissez faire economic concepts
  • Such economic nonintervention and property protection would reverse previous liberal policies that redistributed wealth by confiscating property via taxation.
  • Decreasing taxes via supply-side economics was the key to his economic policy. Reagan believed that tax reductions would encourage business expansion, which, in turn, would lead to a larger supply of goods to help stimulate the entire economy.
• Government was the problem - Americans should not look to the government to solve their problems because government was the problem. Government was a threat to individual and economy freedom. The people, not the government and not even the Constitution, were the ultimate source of sovereignty. Reagan, then, reflected traditional American conservative thinking in his desire to decrease the power of the federal government and increase the power of the state governments. He often said, "Government does not solve problems, It subsidizes them."
• Deregulation - Various activities and welfare programs that liberals thought were the responsibility of the federal government should be taken over by private interests - especially charitable and religious organizations.  Deregulation would restore the historic distinction between federal and states rights and would limit both the entitlement and welfare systems created during the New Deal.
• Tax Cuts - Taxes were a type of governmental theft, not as the liberals claimed, a civic responsibility to pay for schools, road, health, military security.  The economy works best when individuals have money to make their own choices to work, save, produce, and consume.  If Americans have to pay more taxes when their income increases, the work incentive would decrease and hurt the economy.
• Supply-side economics - By decreasing taxes, productivity increases and the government collects more revenue as more people pay taxes.
• Anti-communism - Under what became known as the Reagan Doctrine, the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy.
  • By his second term in office, Reagan favored abandoning the traditional conservative idea of winning the Cold War militarily in favor of negotiating a political end to the Cold War.
  • To that end, Gorbachev and Reagan held four summit conferences between 1985 and 1988; the first in Geneva, Switzerland, the second in Reykjavik, Iceland, the third in Washington, D.C., and the fourth in Moscow.
  • At each, Reagan pursued his belief that if he could persuade the Soviets to allow for more democracy and free speech, it would lead to reform and the end of Communism.

The events of Reagan's live and these political beliefs contributed to Reagan the President.

Goal #5 - To learn what happened to the economy, to the role of the federal government, and to U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan Presidency.

What happened to the economy during Reagan's Presidency?

1. Failed to balance the budget – something that many academics has explained was impossible during wartime (and the Cold War was very expensive) when military budgets must increase.
2. Reduced the long-term inflation rate from 12.5 when he entered office to 4.4 when he left office – almost a quarter of what it had been eight years earlier.
3. Decreased the unemployment rate from 7.1 when he entered office to 5.5 when he left office.
4. Decreased the prime interest rate from 15.26% when he entered office to 9.32% when he left office.
5. Increased the Dow Jones industrial averages from 950.68 on the day of his inauguration to 2235.36 on the day he left office.
6. Increased the per capita disposable income from $9,722 when he entered office to $11,326 when he let office.
7. Tripled the national debt from $908.5 billion when he entered office to $2.684.4 trillion when he left office.
8. Greatly increased the adjusted gross incomes of Americans making over a million dollars from 4,414 individual tax returns filed with the IRS when he entered office to 34,944 by 1987.
9. Quadrupled the difference between what Americans spent for foreign goods and what foreigners spent for American exports (trade deficit) from about $343.3 billion when he entered office to $137.3 billion when he left office.
10. Failed to achieve the promise of supply-side economics – economic growth.

What happened to the role of the federal government during Reagan's Presidency?

1. Reagan’s administration sharply reduced federal funding for the antipoverty programs created under Lyndon Johnson – food stamps, school lunches, and low-income housing. In return, he made grants available to the states to spend money as they saw fit on a wide array of projects previously supported by the federal government.
2. Reagan’s administration left the bedrock programs of the New Deal – like social security – firmly in place.
3. Reagan’s administration used the powers of the federal government to regulate the morality and behavior of the nation in a way that sustained social conservatism.
4. Reagan’s administration increased federal spending for the military, especially with SDI/Star Wars – cost $60 billion during his two terms.
5. Reagan’s conservative view of the federal government - that it was the problem and it needed to be brought under control – permeated his presidency and gained continued to gain support in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
6. Reagan expanded the role of the federal government - especially the executive branch and the military.  Reagan’s belief system would not allow him to ask Americans to discipline consumer desires or stay out of debt.  So Americans kept spending, going into debt, AND making demands on the government. In other words, Reagan could not reverse the American belief in entitlements. 
7. Reagan's conservative policies ushered in a new era of splits and divisions within the ideology - especially with the risse of neoconservative thought and passionate conservatism.

What happened to foreign policy during Reagan's Presidency?

1. In his first term, Reagan escalated the Cold War with the USSR, marking a sharp departure from the earlier, more liberal, policy of détente advocated by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. His administration's policy toward the USSR had three characteristics:
   • Decrease Soviet access to high technology and diminish their resources, including depressing the value of Soviet commodities on the world market.
   • Increase American military buildup to strengthen the U.S. negotiating position.
   • Force the Soviets to devote more of their economic resources to defense.
2. Reagan supported anti-communist groups around the world. Through the Reagan Doctrine, his administration funded
   • the Mujahideen in Afghanistan,
   • various right-wing, anti-socialist groups in Latin America, especially the "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua, as well as in El Salvador and Guatamala.
3. When Mikhail Gorbachev became chairman of the Politburo in 1985, Reagan relaxed his aggressive rhetoric toward the Soviet Union. The USSR was economically disintegrating; indeed, Moscow had built a military that consumed as much as 25% of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors. Thus, Reagan adopted a new position of negotiating with the USSR from strength. Among his accomplishments were
   • Working with Gorbachev so that he gave major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy on Soviet intervention in Eastern Europe.
   • Giving a speech in the USSR, at Gorbachev's request, on the benefit of a free market economy.
   • These and other accomplishments helped to bring about the end of the Cold War declared by George H.W. Bush and Gorbachev in 1989.
4. In 1984, Reagan used the term "war against terrorism" to help pass legislation designed to freeze assets of terrorist groups - especially those Middle Eastern groups believed to be involved in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. and 58 French peacekeepers. (The concept of an American "war on terrorism" did not begin until after 9/11)

Goal #6 - To examine the legacy of Ronald Reagan’s conservatism in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries

1. A dramatic shift of the nation’s political discourse from liberalism to social conservatism.  The social contract of mutual dependence and government oversight that came about during the New Deal has been replaced by traditional values of individualism and unrestrained economic acquisition. As Jules Tygiel wrote, "Reagan's greatest accomplishment lay in the realm of ideology and politics. American conservatives came to embrace Reagan as a visionary, the triumphant personification of their beliefs and the foundation on which to consolidate their hold on the American electorate." (p. 201)
2. A continued belief among Democrats and Republicans alike in decreasing taxes, the magic of the unfettered marketplace, and a desire to decrease government size and control over our lives.
3. A continued commitment to Reagan’s deep belief that foreign “evil empires” - including the USSR and those in the Middle East that were designated by the next three presidents as supporting terrorists - should be defeated, not just contained.
4. An ongoing desire to feel good about America’s exceptional role in the world and in our mandate to spread democracy to communist and Middle Eastern nations. 
5. No great shift from New Deal politics or repeal of liberal issues. Reagan did little to make abortion illegal, stem the tide of women's roles in the economy, or promote the passage of a constitutional amendment restoring prayer in public schools. Addionally, Reagan did little to destroy the welfare state. He failed to curtail or repeal Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
6. The entrance of the religious right into politics as evangelical Christians began to vote, run for political office, and support a new "Contract for America."  This was especially apparent in 1994 when the "Contract for America" brought Republican leadership to both houses in Congress for the first time in 40 years.  Their conservative agency - in many ways, far more conservative than that of Reagan, became to embrace deregulation; lower taxes; loosen environmental controls; dismantle the welfare state; discredit bilateral and multilateral approaches to the world’s problems, especially by criticizing U.S. involvement in the United Nations; decrease federal government role in social welfare issues and devolve federal power downward to the states; andincrease the role of the federal government in moral and military issues.
7. An emphasis on ideology rather than reality shapes many Americans' world view.   Many base our political belief system upon the ideals of what we want, rather than the reality of what we have.
8. The belief that "evil empires" still exist and they still seek to destroy the legacy of freedom embraced by the United States.  While some fear of communism continues to exist, the Soviet enemy has largely been replaced by another, perhaps greater enemy – terrorists and terrorism.
9. Factionalism within the Republican Party between the traditional, social conservatives who support the states' rights agenda of the Jeffersonians; the compassionate conservatives; and the neoconservatives. Thus, at the end of Reagan’s Presidency, many moderate Republicans continued to support him and his policies and praise the brand of conservativism he brought to America. However, those on the right were disappointed and waited for the time to be right to bring a dedicated conservative to office - one that voiced the beliefs of two new types of conservatives - the neoconservatives (many of whom served under Reagan) and the passionate conservatives.
   • Compassionate conservativism - emphasizes that our government has a compassionate duty to serve the needs of the poor, sick, and aged and it should do so through the mechanisms of the free market economy. They believe that taxpayer dollars should be redirected from government welfare agencies to private religious and civil organizations arguing that:
     • social problems are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities, and religious institutions instead of the federal government; and
     • social services should be outsourced to small, local civic associations and liberal organizations that have a detailed knowledge of the best way to serve the needs of people in their communities
   • Neoconservatism - emphasizes that the traditional Jeffersonian view of the best government being that which rules least is outdated and must be replaced by a new kind of conservative strong central government suitable for governing a modern democracy by:
     • Providing welfare services to all people who need them while, at the same time, giving people choices about how they want those services delivered.
     • Allowing people to keep their own money - rather than having it transferred via taxes to the state - with the condition that they put it to defined uses. (Such as allowing Americans to choose their own private social security accounts and their own private health and child-care providers, and providing parents with vouchers that enable them to choose which schools their children will attend.)
     • Passing federal legislation and/or encouraging U.S. Supreme Court decisions that support the moral positions of many conservatives - especially anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage issues.

• If you want to think about how "the American Dream" influences your life once you graduate, take 6 minutes to watch "The American Dream: The Purse Suit of Happyness" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_145095&feature=iv&src_vid=y_ZmM7zPLyI&v=tzcxOl4b7IA

Goal #6 - To understand the most controversial aspect of the Reagan Presidency - the Iran-Contra Affair

To access a Selected Chronology of the Iran-Contra Affair, go to: http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist111/irancontra.html