Another method used by those in control to remove a child's identity and furthermore, a first step in preparing the child for reshaping their values, beliefs and behaviour.

At 9 years old, in 1954, I and my mother immigrated from Germany and settled in Regina . My first friend, who I met in public school and spent time in his home with his family, was an indigenous boy. Perhaps, my experience is not typical.

So very true. Language and culture are correlated. You control/restrict/eliminate language in a society and you change the culture in that society. A practice that even today is not uncommon.

Rare character!

Philip Mansel at his best with documents and background that you won't find anywhere else. Amazing!

This was an Act happening in 1808 which was act passed to prohibit the importation of slavery. Slave labor was intended to be stopped, Though we can see a different style of slave labor, which happen due to Jim crow laws. This document also talks about the ban of importation of slaves into foreign kingdoms and the use of slave labor of color. Though this act was not necessarily since the use of slave carry on in the united states just in a different way. Also when it comes to foreign kingdoms we see people like King Leopold still using Slave labor which took awhile before it was stopped.

Bit of a stretch

I wonder how long the contract that they worked for was; did they stay longer than 5 years or was it every seasonal harvest. Later on in the paragraph it goes on to say the usual number of hours for 6 days a week is how much the usual number of hours is the eight-hour workday or was it a 12-hour birthday for them. Personally I thought it was very unfair of the laborers to quit and lose all interest.

The ability to understand Historical events requires a different skill set than the ability to put those understandings into words. historical study is saddled with the expectation of years of compiling data and research. To even pursue higher education it is required to do so. Learning how other Historians and individuals put their thoughts and research into an essay or collection is one of the most important weapons in a Historians arsenal.

This is my biggest take away from this article. Before understanding strategy, theory, or study one has to be able to take in and understand multiple objective points of truth. Our one understanding of an event or idea is just one of billions. To fully embrace other ideas even if they go against our very moral fiber is the most important tool any person can learn. It is not something that can be taught in school or through reading but in practicum and years of conscious effort and even that may not be enough.

Some of my classmates have already highlighted this particular strategy but I feel it bears repeating. Reviewing not only helps to ensure you have a fresh understanding but also to make certain that an individual is confident in their study. If we also span a few years, revisiting old work and research can help put into perspective how our views have changed and the growth we've certainly achieved. Putting points together from two different times is a fantastic way to chart and understand growth from a personal and Historical perpective.

Argumentative style research and discussion helps to create an environment of discussion. By researching a topic through your own means and building an objective opinion it expands the avenues for how History can be interpreted. but more than that it allows researchers the means to justify and have discourse on their varying perspectives.

The most important thing I believe for Historical study learning how to identify reputable sources for reference. Looking towards an authors experience on the subject, the domain of the website, and even if the material has been referenced elsewhere can help determining the validity of the material.

Here the author is showing exactly the questions he hopes to find answers to. These listed questions enable us to understand his motive and purpose for the layout of this article. Similarly I am looking for what his main purpose is in conveying the information and how best to look at it. Why did he write this? What does the information relate to? how can I interpret and utilize this research myself? these are my biggest questions and goals in tandem with understanding his own.

The article utilizes annotations like these to directly link to articles and passages that the author used throughout. However more importantly the author uses dates throughout the writing to build not only physical reference points for curious users but to also enable the audience the ability to have a starting point for their own desired study.

The article is laid out in segments, distinguished by headers. This breaks up the information into easy to comprehend bursts that shift the focus onto new topics.

There seems to be more emphasis on building a foundation for explaining the history predating this event than the construction of an explicit argument. The piece acts more like a conduit with reference and definitions to help readers understand the context of preexisting organizations and events. This in turns enables us to understand the event more. By forgoing an overall argument we are instead able to better understand the grotesque nature of the themes of the event and form a base realization of its ramifications. Not all historical articles need to be argumentative, teaching is just if not more effective.

This entire point right here from my personal opinion may be the most important in understanding History. The distinctions of ideas and experiences is what makes Historical Study so rewarding and complicated. Different viewpoints on the same event can create a whole picture and build a narrative inclusive to as many sides as possible. The variation is what creates depth of study and builds a base for further research.

This piece may be the single most critical point take away from the article. It states the overall message trying to be conveyed as well as sets up groundwork for further exploration. In study of any topic there is an abundance of information, deciphering and cross referencing that material is the objective purpose of historians. In order to understand and compile that information one has to be able to study quickly and efficiently past and new works. The steps that follow this statement are building upon its base claim.

THE most valuable piece information,because if there is no other pieces of good evidence you can look back at the topic sentence.

Having the knowledge of the basic foundation of literature and composition. Knowing the vocabulary and applying it to the subjects.

making sure to have a realistic mindset

You have to learn how to become a more assertive, dedicated reader that knows how to handle/ comprehend the material. While also learning to prioritize what is most important

"Predatory" reading makes me think of building a house. You have to get the foundation (argument?), build the frame (topic sentences and "signposts"), and add the walls, roof, ect. (the rest of the written work). After you've built your house, you should inspect it (reread) to prepare for sale.

A good signpost should let us know where we are going and help us find our place when rereading.

"Argument"-this is our main target.

Ask your "why?" (Why does this matter? Why was this included?) and your "What?" (What is the writer's goal? What is the main take away here?)

The best way for comprehending scholarly works is to understand the meaning of the work that you're reading and to look at all different angles.

Reading for pleasure is a lot simpler than reading nonfiction books because when reading for pleasure, it would typically be a fiction story and those are always one path of reading. But when reading nonfiction or scholarly books, it's only taken form that persons point of view, even though there are probably a bunch other angles you could look at it through.

History is very messy, and sometimes the truth is horrific.

As much as many people sometimes want to- or wish that they never happened, they can't deny the impact and the travesty that occurred in humanity's darkest hours. To hide and deny it means to be ignorant.

Greatness changes from day to day, hour to hour, week to week. It's dynamic and everchanging.

One thing that may be great for some, could be awful for others.

I think that it's okay to feel both. You can be equally proud or ashamed of your countries history, and that's a good thing.

You've seen the best or the worst moments of your nation's past, and it's okay to acknowledge your feelings. Be ashamed and horrified that it was- at one point -okay to own slaves. But you can also be proud- that people saw that as morally wrong and horrifying, and sought to change it.

One of the most important questions in a history class, but it's also a loaded question- It's almost ironic, how simple it is to ask but how long and expansive the answer is.

We look to the beginning of humanity, and follow the footsteps and stories of our ancestors over thousands of years. We see them coincide and interact with each other, simultaneously and not.

I agree with this. History is very important, as it helps us understand what things were like before, how cultures and nations formed over the years.

Not to mention the mistakes they made in the past. We look to those mistakes and resolve to never do them again. We stare upon the awful things people did, and know to do better. To understand and say that "this is wrong, how can we change it for the better?"

I don't understand when the author is saying need to gather information about the students and show it because if you're gathering information about the students aren't you essentially grading what they're doing or are you just looking at what they are learning and things the students are having trouble with

The idea of school has always come with a lot of stress especially when it comes with the pressure to receive a good grade on all of your assignments. Students have so much pressure to do the assignment correctly that they forget that the assignment was intended to teach them something and they forget the main reason why they're learning.

This brings me back to one of my high school classes- it was a geography class. I could tell right off the bat that it wasn't something that the teacher particularly cared for. It was packets on packets, and lots of movies. I barely remember any of it.

In contrast, I had a creative writing class in which the teacher genuinely loved their chosen interest. I can look on that fondly, and still remember the teachings.

There's a difference between classes when one is uncaring and just cares about giving the kids a grade- and the other who genuinely wanted their students to learn and grow.

I agree that motivation is a big part of going to school and learning at school instead of attending the class to learn everything because I feel like nowadays most students just go to school and attend the classes and just try to pass without learning.

In my personal opinion I feel as if grading has become a substitute for actually teaching the students the subject instead we tell the students to teach themselves and then we give them the grade based on how we feel they did.

Especially for those who love to write, the knowledge that you have to be extremely careful with your words- knowing that it'll end up subtracting from your work- makes it feel like a chore.

Writing essays- sometimes feel like slogging through mud, just writing enough to reach the requirements, instead of enjoying and learning from the research.

I'm even guilty of this. In my case, I see a grade as more of a tangible goal, even if it's not the best example of proper motivation. Sometimes it's hard to get motivated to do certain things, so I need something with a sort of reference to cut to the point- in a sense.

I've noticed this a lot. Many times when people are assigned a reading, they do their best to try and 'save' time. Looking for topics and reasoning, and ignoring some of the more important issues a text is trying to get at. I don't know if this has to deal with time constrictions, or just wanting to skate by.

Growing up as a kid, and knowing that grades were a big part of how people viewed a person as 'successful'. There were many times where, even if I wanted to do a more challenging project or topic; I would go with something I already knew because I didn't want to take a chance on having my grade drop.

Assigned readings were always a struggle for me in middle and high school. While I loved reading, I was never the biggest fan of them being directly assigned to me, it almost felt like "Here's a book, you probably won't like this, but we want you to read everything and then tear it apart."

I want to enjoy my reading experience, I want to learn and talk about it, but tearing it apart made it all feel so forced.

Great closing

Civil War and emancipation change Jourdan’s life and The life of his wife and children.

Explanation: After the fall of the Soviet Union the Western world came in and westernized it and with the reminants of the former communist era looming nearby via the statues they are trapped by the capitalistic western ideologies.

Interpretation: In globalization we see things such as migration but this is bigger than people moving to another country this is a whole area being changed to assimilate western ideologies so all these capitalistic companies had migrated into new lands and overtook them from the former owners as we see when they compare the park home to statues of communist leaders to a prison

Explanation: No matter where they go the invaders will always think about where they are from and the good things that come from there

Interpretation: Sometimes in globalization of the world people get moved into other countries without their consent or in ways that they may not have control or sometimes they want to have a better life but at the end of the day they always think back to their home and the things that make that place good.

What is being said here is arguing against the Cold War. They state that we are very alike to our Russian counterpart and we hope that they feel the same way that we are in that this is senseless and avoid a nuclear war.

What this is really saying is that these smaller groups that want to build Germany back up in their own way are not going to be able to because of the agreement the European Union has and the views they share are the ones of the major Western powers and more specifically the United States.

We look at all of the colonies the European powers and the United States has taken over and it has all been for reasons like exploiting the resources that were there or For the location of the places and with doing this these powers were taking away from the people that had lived there originally and this declaration is putting an end to that.

We look at the treatment of women during this era and its not nearly where it should have been. We are about twenty some years into the feminist movement but women were still treated poorly we see this in this source as well as the teritary source.

Churchill here is doing a couple of things, first and foremost he is calling out the Soviet Union for having established Communist setups all across the world. He is also acknowledging that there is communist setups within the United States and the United Kingdom even though they are not well established. This is a issue that he knows needs to get solved or else it could take over the entire world.

This was the final piece of the puzzle in punishing Germany but with the other allied powers owing the United States a while lot of money why not make Germany pay war reparations so that the allied powers would not in reality have to pay the United States. This was the final tally the Treaty of Versailles punishing Germany.

Imperialism was spreading throughout the world and the big powers of the world were all fighting for this land that would be used for resources such as trade, slaves and other things that would benefit this country. For Great Britain they knew they may have to fight enemies for these lands and in this statement they are flexing their advantages they have over the other powers and how they will defeat them.

What Kossuth is saying is that there is a difference between a nation and a state and we are clearly misuusing the term nation which is when a group of people share a common ethniciity etc... They are critisizing the United States for calling themselves a nation when clearly they are not

What this is saying is as great as the industrial revolution may be we have to look at the negative affects which were not really being look at. The workers are saying that the machines are directly costing 4,000 men jobs and indirectly costing 8,000 people jobs so they are pleading their case to prevent the use of these machines in the factories

What this is essentially saying is that no country can make laws for all of the other countries without the authority of all of those countries. This can all stem back from the French revolution where this once was not the case and they all had to revolt against one power that made laws over all of the others which is where we see the concert of Europe political system.

Explanation: All of these European countries main source of income came via trade with other countries via the seas. Interpretation: Traveling was such an important part of all of these countries and as time progressed the area they navigated grew which was needed for the overall future well being of its people via trade

Saying although they are far away they will still control them

France wants to develop rules coming from the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church

France is aware of how many Black slaves that were being used in Louisianna

The code came out way later then when they actually started slave trading

Their plan to control the perception of others

Even though not British land at the time they had a royal grant to establish a colony

Sounds like the relationship between British colonists and neighboring Native nations was not good at least from the British side.

Will be a persuasive letter

This new found land hasn't decided what religion will rule yet.

Saying that no one is as bold or as stout as his people, with the Indian way of life, one can pick up and move home when they please.

Just by the beginning of the way that the Native American responds to the French, makes him seem very prideful of his own people.

Recognizing the way that the French and Europeans view Native American people and is disagreeing with it.

Could be talking about the Underworld representing the other side of the world from were the cherokee were, when it stated that the underworld had opposite seasons then what the cherokee people had.

Saying that the Great Buzzard flew through the cherokee country creating valleys and mountains just by the way he flew around early earth.

The Cherokee Indians are afraid and believe that the world is going to get sunken under water because of the amount of people who die over time as the earth gets older. This is an interesting creation theory as it is obvious that their are so many tribes with so many different creation belief stories.

I think that the Bald Eagle god told the cayote to have intercoarse with a women before the first man of the world did, eventually letting the man and women live together.

The Salinan Indians believed that the Bald Eagle was the creator of man and women as if it is a sort of animal god of humans on earth.

These highly defensible cliff dwellings could be considered highly defensible due to the tall outside walls of the dwellings. Also the placement, being underneath a cliff, gives enemies no way of penetrating from the back.

There was 150 rooms built inside of a castle type of structure underneath a cliff in the Mesa Verde National Cliff Palace. The structure makes a different and clustered way of life for those living in 1190-1300 CE.

Another quick and subtle dig at the Native American people coming from the Spanish once again. When one doesn't understand something they usually criticize them.

Funny to see the Spaniards point of view on how the Native Americans reacted to being taken over and controlled by newcomers. The spaniards did not give the Native American people enough humanity as they conquered their lands.

This passage highlights the issues that arise when categorizing the standard for, the "real" man, or like discussed in lecture the "true" solider. Here the author does a spectacular job at highlighting the irony of the conditioning imposed on soldiers. In lecture it was also demonstrated how such practices as, cross dressing began emerging because of the imposed ideology of the "true" soldier.

This is again a bourgeois feminist belief of the early 20th century. Sex for procreation, within marriage, was a positive force. This undercuts the belief that sex was universally seen as sinful in the late Victorian/early Edwardian era; however, it must not be mistaken for modern second-wave feminist arguments for more radical sexual freedom (though there were a small minority of radical feminists at the time who advocated for that, as well.)

Discussion of hysteria in girls, making sex taboo for girls and also stating that there are "other things" that they should be taking care of. What would the view towards men's sexual development be?

This implies that women are naturally sexual creatures; this reflects the view of early feminists, which eventually became subsumed into the project of marriage.

This is a mild example of eugenicist thinking. The belief that people should make matches with the goal of passing on desirable traits to children, thus improving "the race."

This is now the era where a woman thinks past the ceremony of marriage and about the possibility of future children; because of this, it is now the woman's responsibility as the one who actually bears the children to make sure that they are not messed up genetically and educated correctly.

"Worth" here seems to be intended to refer to intrinsic/genetic qualities, but these qualities were often related to class - and, as such, often related to money.

This puts the decision to get married and to have sex firmly in the hands of individual women - not in the hands of their families or of society. However, as we will see, women are expected to consider social and familial realities when making their choice.

This is also the idea that the poor chose to be poor. If the women did not choose to marry poor men there would not be poor children.

This emphasizes the importance of traditional gender roles (mother as nurturer, mother in the private sphere) in relation to marriage.

This is a good example of "approachable" digital history - many people today understand the concept of a spreadsheet. Baker simply explains how he took this tool a step further using new methodologies.

I would like to make an observation of the purpose of the second poster which says "Enlist". This image is propaganda most likely coming from the American side urging men to enlist for the world war 1. This image depicts a mother clutching her baby, both are submerged under water. This drowning was likely caused by the sinking of the leusitania, which was "a British passenger ship sailing off the coast of Ireland"(Keene 597). This ship was destroyed by a German U-boat who claimed that the ship was carrying explosives. This image, by Fred Spear, has a feeling of vengeance attached to it. The men that it intended to inspire will feel like they need to fight for the lost lives of the Americans that were on the Luisitania.

The image on the left is obviously drawn by a pro imperialist because it depicts the Philippine independence as an ugly, ignorant and uneducated person. America, portrayed by Uncle Sam, appears to be a good caretaker of the Philippines as to suggest that taking control over their country would wind up giving them civilizationg and education. The image on the right was probably drawn by a anti-imperialist because of how the new territories of the United States look uneasy with the teachings of Uncle Sam. Also the other non american countries look like they have not achieved since being "taught" by Uncle Sam. They are working bad jobs, uneducated and not allowed inside the school. The artist who drew this portrayed this as a precaution to the 4 new territories of the U.S because they might want to think twice about letting America have control over them.

The image on the right shows how the African americans struggled to move to the north during slavery. The image shows a lonely slave in a dark and meek place probably trying to escape from his compound. However, on the right you can see African Americans rejoicing together as exodusters they are able to move north away from the racist south.

Many people regard women who work in the house taking care of children and the like as somehow lesser than women who work outside of the home. This is a result of the breakdown of the american family unit. It is crucial to understand the importance of raising our children to be good citizens. Therefore, child rearing takes a lot of effort, and women have the stereotype of being the nurturing, loving ones. However, some women show no desire to be a housewife and that is also perfectly acceptable given the necessary precautions are taken by BOTH the husband and wife to ensure their children are properly cared for if they have any. It is important to remember that a housewife is equally important as a breadwinner in their particular situation. Our society must rediscover the astronomical importance of teaching our children proper behavior or risk further damage to our society.

And yet another quote that the modern feminist would find absurd. The author once again makes it seem like women shouldn't have to work to support their family just "because". She fails to identify a logical reason for why not. The value system that is being used to define this norm is based off of tradition alone and not on substance.

I couldn't help but roll my eyes after reading this passage. The author here is suggesting women's inferiority by suggesting that women are some how less capable of handling war than men. Its ironic because the point of the article is that women are more than equal yet here the author totally contradicts the point by suggesting that they can't handle something that men can.

Additionally, the writer is using scare tactics and slippery slope logical fallacies to make the reader believe that if women are given equal rights... they will be drafted and they will have to go to war.

It is important to note the climate of this era. The Vietnam war had taken many lives and the US was still living under the "threat" of soviet communism. For this reason it is easy to see why this slimy tactic may have been used. War and the draft were on people's minds and playing into this fear was probably a highly effective way to try and preserve the status quo.

American is going against what we claim to value most, a nations independence. We looked over Vietnam's declaration in class and we noticed that there were many links to our own nation's declaration (as Dr. King states in this quote). Yet our nation is still not willing to let them be free in their own way. Our nation is forcing themselves upon Vietnam in order to make them what our nation believes to be free. As Dr. King states, this is our western arrogance and it is our nations biggest downfall. Our nation believes that if it is not in the way that our nation runs, then it must be wrong. Overall we are forcing our way into a country that is not ours to fix.

This article was formatted very similarly to the United States Declaration of Independence and I assume many other declarations of independence. This declaration in particular seemed to be of a recorded history instead of a declaration of independence because it had not really even mentioned that the Vietnamese were making their own country until the end. This document also seemed less formal than the American declaration due to its length, ease to read, and more finger pointingly direct against the French. Finally, this declaration seems to be saying that while they respect America, France, and the other modern countries they are not willing to submit to them and they should not be taken advantage of because they are their own country.

The problem is that older people have to retire due to an inability to continue with manual labor but do no have any money to live off of. Furthermore, while many would have previously moved in with their children many of the children were struggling to make ends meet themselves.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5109 FDR talks about the inability of the government to pay its bills. Long discuses how the government and the people are falling further into debt. He quotes that the government is taking out a five billion dollar loan but little good is being done with it.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary online, "wrest" is defined as "to pull (something) away from someone by using violent twisting movements" or "to take (something) from someone with much effort."

This quote made me realize that if one type of inequality is not present, another will be. During this time period with the shift in industry, inequality and status shifts as well. No longer is superiority defined on who has the best tools or the strongest punch, but on who has the best education and the most money. This is clearly seen when discussing wealth. The top 1% owns and controls 51% of wealth. If money be put in the wrong hands, one can assume that corruption in politics and industry will definitely occur.

Why is Sumner so strongly for a completely hands-off economy, does he have something to gain from the increasing wage gap?

During this time the Captains of Industry/Robber Barons were gaining power and wealth. The idea that these men were working harder than others was severely skewed. All of the richest men at the time were creating their monopoly and money off of the backs of the working class. Exploiting this class was commonplace, forcing workers to work 10+ hour shifts in dangerous situations for minimal pay. Sumner's idea that work is proportional to success shows a lack of understanding of the conditions of the working class.

in other words, if you are black or mixed-race you have to have permission to gather in a group. Did they have permission to gather in churches? Might this be one way they "legally" gathered and help explain the prominence of black churches in the Civil Rights Movement many years later?