Niall Fergusson argues that the violence of the 20th century was due to empires in decline, volatile economies, and ethnic conflict. He stresses that the conflicts of this time period were empires against empires, not nations against nations. Considering the assumption that anarchy leads to warfare, Fergusson claims dictatorships and authoritarian leaders are beneficial for maintaining order. He states that empires may be better for ethnic minorities than nation-states, in instances where they follow the same religion. Empires are multiethnic, therefore minorities are more likely to receive fair treatment, rather than being scape goats.
It is clear that lumping people into nation-states could lead to ethnic conflict— it is a form of homogenization. For example, labelling all people in France as Frenchmen completely ignores the fact that some people come from external homelands— clearly, this was upsetting to many, as they want the nationalities of where they came from recognized. In terms of the economy, the 20s, 30s and 40s were “danger decades” in that they consisted of years of economic volatility. These days the economy is much less volatile, and we see much less social conflict than we did in previous years. Fergusson states that the events of the 20th century should be framed as the descent of the East, not the rise of the West. Due to the fact that empires were in decline, they were desperate for expansion and growth. If killing your neighbours was what was needed in order to expand, it was done— they were in your way of expanding your empire.
The ability for people to look at a situation from a different perspective is vital in today’s globalized society. Diversity is the most important core attribute we share that gives us a new perspective to assess situations differently through our diverse backgrounds and upbringings. Unlike Patrick J. Buchanan’s argument in his essay titled “Deconstructing America,” diversity is not a burden, but rather a necessity in America’s culture. Conversely, Fredrickson 's essay titled, “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective,” illustrated a more precise version of American history that disproves Buchanan’s ethnocentric ideologies. Buchanan speaks of diversity as a narrow, one-way street. The imprecise interpretations of history
...hat sometimes some ethnic groups didn’t share the same ideas with other people and that lead to fights and violence with the purpose of become the leader.
Geoffrey Canada shares his story about growing up in an inner city neighborhood of the South Bronx in the 1950s and 1960s. Geoffrey Canada is one of four boys who live with his mother after their father left them. Geoffrey Canada talks about the struggles of growing up in the inner city and facing many challenges. As Geoffrey Canada grew up he witnessed a lot of violence which included young children getting their hands on firearms. The prevalence of firearms among children has changed the nature of violence in the United States. Violent acts have transformed from fists, sticks, and knifes to guns. Guns have undermined the street code of honor, the OGs back in the day were ruthless but not killers, this new generation has no developed courage and fighting skills but relied on guns for protection.
Expansion was one of the benefits where Empires can spread their religion, conquering more land, and controlling trade routes. Many conflicts between european states were caused by imperial ambition due to the fact that the government wanted more power for their empire.they wanted more expansion for more trade route. Although wars and conflicts between european states were caused by imperial ambition and expansion I argue that the way the government controls their empire through powerthirst, expansion and trade.
“A World on the Edge” by Amy Chua discusses in depth the link between globalization and ethnic violence in several countries. Chua, a Yale Law professor, published her article in 2002 to the Wilson Quarterly and updated it in 2014. She has many crucial points throughout her article, but her core argument would be the effects that market-dominant minorities have on developing countries. Market-dominant minorities would be considered any ethnic group that is not the majority, but are the leading source of revenue and the wealthiest group in that specific country. Chua follows up this argument by stating that globalization is powered by markets and democracy. She also states that capitalism is the best economic system devised because it is a major
War was a way of life for these people, they fought throughout their history and basically their empires died without it. They were always expanding the empires through war and when they could no longer do this they fought with themselves within their own empires. When this happened they rapidly declined and where easy prey for the Europeans when they arrived.
War is commonly defined as an armed conflict between two entities, one that dates back to the beginning of mankind’s very existence. During this time many have attempted to explain the complex nature of war, its actors, and its origins. There are two authors in particular who have made critical analysis on the topic of war within the international system, more specifically the nature of balanced power and hegemonic war and the role that perception plays in conflict. Glipin asserts that disequilibrium will result in a hegemonic war due to inferior civilizations striking falling civilizations. Whereas Jervis asserts that misperception is the driving cause of war. I argue that it is not an inferior civilization, but rather different economies
...the changes in social differences of America. Racial discrimination was at its peak due to the rises in the number of the Americans who wished for a “Pure America.” Fear of Immigrants grew because of the differences Americans saw in both their cultural and political ways, whether it was just they as an individual or the nation of origin as a whole. Many of the older generations of America found themselves disagreeing with the ways in which the new generation behaved in the 20s and had a much too circumscribed views to the decade. America, still to this day, suffers from very similar problems almost a century ago. If history helps the present to realize past mistakes to fix the present of future problems similar to it, the 20s may be a good example in which America may use to solve the problems in America concerning the fear of the changes in our social differences.
The 1920’s and 1950’s both shared the optimism that the conclusion of a war brings, and consequently both began very prosperously. While the materialism of the 20’s faded into the economic depression that followed, and the glow of the 1950’s was dimmed by the onset of communist fever, both decades proved to be successful and iconic in the way that they brought about massive prosperity, and because youth found new ways of expressing themselves and inviting progress. Unfortunately not all outcomes were good, and both eras triggered an onslaught of racial tension that would continue well into the future.
Our world today is becoming increasingly nationalised, boiling each nation into distict individuals. Wiping out variety and diversity in a country. This is shown in the source as the speaker has a standpoint, by which a country should spread its beliefs upon all of its civilians forming them into one. They describe this from a crisis standpoint as they plead for uniformity of their nations spirit, even going as far to say that, if unchanged it could be the destruction of their entire race. It is evident that this standpoint is false, for the events in history miror the opposition of this statement. Nationalism has brought terror among civilizations, to the point of destruction. This statement supported by the genocide that Stalin and Hitler brought upon their people, furthermore nationalism is what started WW1 that lead into WW2. Yes nationalism can bring great pride and joy to a nation but on the back hand it can also lead to destruction and death.
Since the first day they met, everyone knew that Katie and Ted would stay together forever. He was always telling everyone how he loved her and that she was the perfect wife and mother. However, behind closed doors was another story. Ted was not a kind man in “his” house, he was verbally abusive and constantly accusing Katie of cheating on him. These fits of rage were promptly followed by flowers and apologies. Katie was abused by Ted, however, she did love him and he did promise never to hurt her again.
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
together not only in the time of need, but at all times and in every
During the Twentieth-Century, there were several dramatic economic changes and events. Going from being a complete agricultural nation to being an industrial super, enduring a great depression, having a civil rights movement and so many more, the 20th Century carries the names of some of the world’s most important events. Although history has flourished with all of its game changers, the solute most important event of the 1900’s was World War 2. The second world war, just decades after the first, “was the most widespread and deadliest war in history, involving more than 300 countries and resulting in more than 50 million military and civilian dead,” according to History.com. After World War I had ended, the peace settlement known as the Treaty of Versailles, created in 1919, had a purpose of obligating Germany to relinquish territories to Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. However these new territories were very susceptible to aggression from its neighboring countries, Germany and the Soviet Union. During this time there was still a great deal of tension between the countries/ territories. Italy and Japan viewed the treaty as a failure to acknowledge the status of the two’s world powers. Also Germans saw that rather than being defeated at the close of World War I, they were betrayed. With the economy being exceptionally deprived and a great deal of political instability, this set the stage for dictatorships that according to Twentieth-Century America “offered territorial expansion by military conquest as a way to redress old rivalries, dominate trade and gain access to raw materials”. Countries such as Japan began making use of propaganda’s stressing that Japans “greatness” must be reassured. Italy’s Fascist dictator, Benito Mus...
...arly lead to the rivalry of superpowers being replaced by the clash of civilizations. Conversely it then makes it evident that in this particular new world global politics then become the politics of civilizations whereas local politics become the politics of ethnicity (Huntington, 1996).