Kaitie DisherHistory 14131644

Gridded Lives

In Karaganda, Kazakhstan and Billings, Montana were built in the same way. This way was the grid-style formation.

Residential tracts were built with assembly-line efficiency

Billings was founded by railroad entrepreneurs, miners, businessmen, and farmers.

Karaganda was founded in an authoritarian state, on a prison town

Gridded Lives

The American West represents American individualism

People wanted to be free and innovative. They were pioneers, democratic, and free laborers.

Northern Kazakhstan is a place of no freedom, exile, and imprisonment.

They have a planned economy. Both cities were unmarked voids before

they were founded as cities.

Gridded Lives

cities are usually founded when a large group of people are accumulated in a general area.

Karaganda and Billings were the exception to this rule.

People wanted to improve their lived, so many moved to Montana to break the soil. based on what advertisers made Montana out to be a wonderful place.

NKDV officers painted a better picture of Kazakhstan than it actually was which made people actually want to be on the deportation list

Because farming in a dry area was difficult, more laborers and machinery were necessary.

From these circumstances, the use of migrant, unskilled workers proliferated.

Gridded Lives: Summary

Both countries were founded on opposing principles and ideologies, two of their cities bear striking resemblance to one another as argued by Kate Brown.

Kazakhstan is a land that lacks individualism and was founded on authoritarianism and exile. It is a place that lacks freedom for its people.

The United States was founded on the belief that people should be free laborers and have the opportunity to exercise their own decisions and beliefs. Freedom

These two cities seem to tell opposing tales. the two cities are similar because of their grid formats, farming, and the way in which people were prompted into the cities.

Both Karaganda and Billings use grid format to keep the city ready for expansion and accommodate railroads. Both cities lured people with glossy visions of a better place . And finally, both cities used migrant workers to establish efficient farming to feed their respective nations’ people.

Though it seems as if these two cities are worlds apart, their tales tell a similar story.

Americans, Europeans, and the Movies In this period, American society and

culture were changing at a faster rate than the production of movies

“Hyphenated Americans” were newcomers arriving to America to pursue a better life. They had to endure discrimination, restricted legislation, and violence.

They also had to submerge into American culture (language, religion, clothing, cuisine, etc.) Their character traits, complexion, speech, and features made them standout against the homogenous looking culture projected onto the movie screen.

Americans, Europeans, and the Movies The silent feature film took the world by storm.

It lasted less than 20 years form the time it started until the time it died.

Between 1912- 1929 more than 10,000 silent features were made

Most silent films fell into well defined categories of subject and treatment. For example the crime story, western, historical costume, domestic melodrama, and romance were all popular.

The films were centered on upper-middle and wealthy upper-class men and women with lavish houses, clothing, and personal possessions.

Americans, Europeans, and the Movies US society was reorienting after

WWI Cecil B. DeMille: Male and Female

(1919) outraged Moralists when a glimpse of a female’s breast was revealed onscreen; this signified the transforming social codes

The European films showcased a liberated a bold sexuality

American films centered on constant action, a trait that Europeans admired

American films also transitioned to a form of comedy that showcased the humor of sexuality

Americans, Europeans, and the Movies: Summary During the explosion of silent films, more

than 10,000 American features were made in less than two decades. These films showcased the ideals of American culture.

The films painted a picture of wealthy men and women. As the culture began to change after WWI, filmmakers began to take more risks including the shot of female breasts in 1919’s Male and Female.

European films highlighted the freedom of sexuality. Women featured in these films were flirtatious, bold, and not timid.

American films featured dramatic action and change. These characteristics were admired by European moviegoers.

Roosevelt and Hitler

After WWI, both Germany and the United States suffered from the Great Depression more than any other nations

The nations experienced an unemployment rate of about 25%.

Between 13 and 16 million Americans in the labor force found themselves unemployed while more than 6 million Germans found themselves in the same conditions

Roosevelt and Hitler

Both countries looked for a leader who displayed confidence and political charisma.

Roosevelt and Hitler symbolized energy and commitment. Both leaders were willing to experiment to attempt to save the economy.

They supported experimental government initiatives on an unprecedented scale.

Roosevelt wanted to preserve the “American way of life” while Hitler was focused on world conquest.

Both were preceded by inadequate leaders: Herbert Hoover (US) and Heinrich Bruning (GER).

Roosevelt and Hitler

Both governments government work programs to attempt to stimulate the economy and create new jobs

Both supported farm subsidies and rural relocation and idealized rural life

Both supported corporatism in which the government supervised the cooperation of businesses and laborers.

Roosevelt and Hitler: SummaryAfter WWI the world was in shambles. The

tumult of the war caused the United States and Germany to suffer tremendously economically. In a state of despair, both countries looked to leaders who promised a brighter future. For the United States, this leader was FDR who would become praised and idolized throughout history. FDR’s ideas and politics were strikingly similar to Germany’s leader: Adolph Hitler. Though their practices were very similar, Hitler would go down in history as one of the most evil rulers.

Their practices aimed to lift the country out of economic despair. The New Deal and the Third Reich established government work programs and encouraged nationalism.

Imperial Responses to Revolution Within five years the Kennedy

and Johnson administrations led the nation into a greater military commitment in South Vietnam.

By the end of 1965 American ground troops totaled 180,000

a year later there were another 200,000

Vietnam War is the longest, least productive war in American history

Imperial Responses to Revolution Because of the way that the United States

behaved politically during the Cold War and the beginning of the Vietnamese fight for independence.

the US became known around the world as an imperialist bully

In 1776 the United States fought for independence from imperialistic Great Britain. In 1960 Vietnam fought for independence from imperialistic US.

Imperial Responses to Revolution By 1775 the British colonial

authorities had lost control over the situation

After the war, the United States places severe restrictions on the Vietnamese economy through a number of punitive measures.

Among these are the Ford Administration’s decision to freeze $150 million in Vietnamese assets as well as expanding an embargo on North Vietnam

Imperial Responses to Revolution: Summary This country was founded on the principles

of freedoms for all. The nation values capitalism, human rights,

and other various freedoms. In the late 1700’s, colonists fought for their

right to separate from the British monarchy. They fought and were underestimated by the British which eventually led to a win.

It is ironic then that the ways in which the British attempted to control the colonists is the same way that the US attempted to control Vietnam nearly two hundred years later.

Globalization and American Power America's aggressive unilateral turn opened a

public debate over the prospect and the morality of an " American empire." In an influential article in the New York Times.,political scientist Michael Ignatieff noted that the United States had moved unmistakably toward a new version of empire not built on colonies and conquest but based on enforcing order in the world, promoting American values and interests, and exempting itself from international rules.

The reassertion of American military power under Ronald Regan prompted fresh warnings against the "imperial temptation."

In the past three or four years, a growing number of commentators have begun to use the term American Empire less pejoratively, if still ambivalently, and in some cases with genuine enthusiasm.

Whil Mallaby and Ignatieff are perhaps best described as liberal interventionists- proponents of what Eric Hobsbawm has sneeringly dismissed as "the imperialism of human rights"

Globalization and American Power Officially, the United States remains an empire in

denial. Most politicians would agree with the distinction drawn by the historian Charles Beard back in 1939: "American is not Rome or Britain. It is to be America,"

We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused- perffering greatness to power, and justice to glory."

Julius Caesar call himself imperator (emperor) but never king. His adopted heirs Augustus preferred princeps. Emperors can call themselves what they like, and so can empires.

Define the term empire narrowly enough, of course, and the United States can easily be excluded from the category.

Most historians would agree that if anything, American economic power after 1945 exceeded that of Britain after 1815, a comparable watershed of power following the final defeat of Napoleonic France.

Globalization and American Power The extraordinary growth in

productivity achieved between around 1890 and 1950 eclipse anything previously achieved by Britain, even in the first flush of the Industrial Revolution.

The United States over deliberately used its power to advance multilateral and mutually balanced tariff reductions under the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade.

The distinction between hegemony and empire would be legitimate if the term empire did simply mean , as so many American commentators seem to assume, direct rule over foreign territories without any political representation of their inhabitants.

Globalization and American Power: Summary In 1987 British historian Paul Kennedy' best- selling book

The Rise and Fall of Great Powers stirred controversy by linking the fate of the United States to the gloomy precedent of Rome, the Hapsburgs, and Great Britain.

No sooner did Kennedy's dismal prediction appear than things began to look up for the United States.

In the later 1980s and through the 1990s, the American economy surged from gains in productivity, the rise of the computer industry, and booms in banking and real estate, while rivals such as Japan and Germany stagnated.

America's aggressive unilateral turn opened a public debate over the prospect and the morality of an " American empire." In an influential article in the New York Times. political scientist Michael Ignatieff noted that the United States had moved unmistakably toward a new version of empire not built on colonies and conquest but based on enforcing order in the world, promoting American values and interests, and exempting itself from international rules.