Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

SpongeBob SquarePants

2009-04-17T16:53:42Z

ETrundel: rm

'''Spongebob Squarepants''' is an animated children's television program that has won several [[Emmy]] awards. Although the show is marketed to children, it is a show that people of all ages can enjoy.<ref>http://media.www.clarksonintegrator.com/media/storage/paper280/news/2004/11/22/Entertainment/Spongebob.For.Adults.Too-812397.shtml</ref> Celebrities such as [[Mike Myers]] and [[Justin Timberlake]] are fans of the show.<ref>Byrne, Ciar. "From Bikini Bottom to A-list celebrity: why the world loves SpongeBob SquarePants"; ''The Independent'', 10 February 2005</ref> It has been on the air since it's debut on the Nickelodeon network in 1999. The show was made into a 2004 movie.

==Characters==
*'''Spongebob Squarepants''', the main character, is a happy-go-lucky sponge (shaped like a rectangular kitchen sponge, while his parents are ordinary sea sponges) who works at the Krusty Krab restaurant as a fry cook. The character has been praised as a symbol of a good attitude.<ref>Springfield Newsleader, Newsleader in Education "Attitude", 6 January 2009</ref>
*'''Patrick Star''', Spongebob's best friend, is a [[sea star]], known to have somewhat of a low intelligence. However, Patrick is extremely loyal, going so far as to brag about Spongebob's (perceived) abilities, which Spongebob usually meets in oft-heroic fashion. Patrick is often known for bursts of insight, which save the day, but which he promptly forgets.
*'''Squidward J. Tentacles''', an [[octopus]], is Spongebob's neighbor and co-worker at the Krusty Krab. He is cynical and often shows annoyance at the antics of Spongebob and Patrick.
*'''Eugene H. Krabs''', a crab, is the penny-pinching owner of Krusty Krab. He is often harsh to his employees but will occasionally show appreciation to them.

==References==
<references/>

==External Link==
*[http://www.nick.com/shows/spongebob_squarepants/index.jhtml Official Website]
*[http://www.spongebobworld.com/ Fan Site]

[[Category: Television Shows]]

Cold War

2009-04-17T16:52:53Z

ETrundel:

The '''Cold War''' was political, economic and psychological conflict, together with regional hot wars, between the [[United States]],[[NATO]] and other allies, and the [[USSR]], [[China]] and their allies between 1947 and 1989.

Although there was no direct fighting between the superpowers, each country was involved in a number of [[proxy conflict]]s, most notably in [[Vietnam]], [[Korea]] and [[Afghanistan]]. The most tense moment between the two main powers came in 1962 during the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], which ended without escalation into warfare.

The Cold War was marked by a nuclear [[arms race]] between the two super-powers, and the unchecked [[proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]] was a cause for concern in many quarters. The Cold War also was marked by high levels of [[espionage]].

The root of the Cold War lies in [[Soviet]] [[expansionism]] and [[subversion]] of so-called "[[bourgeois regime]]s".

The tension during the war fluctuated, with the super powers going through periods of heightened conflict and also periods of improved relations. It ended on November 11, 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet overseas empire. History closed the books on the Soviet Union itself on December 25, 1991. It was replaced by 15 smaller countries, especially [[Russia]], which all rejected Communism and the Cold War.
==Causes==
Following the Russian Revolution in the closing days of [[World War I]], President [[Woodrow Wilson]] refused to recognized the communist government of Russia and contributed troops in support of the White Russians. Not until 1933 did the US recognize the Soviet government, and relations did not truly warm until Hitler's invasion of Russia.

While the US and the UK cooperated with Russia throughout [[World War II]], tensions began to deteriorate soon after the end of the conflict, notably over the division of Germany and the occupation status of Europe. In 1946, George Kennan, a [[Department of State]] [[diplomat]] stationed in [[Moscow]], wrote the ''Long Telegram'', in which argued for the necessity of [[Containment|containing]] the Soviet Union. His cable resonated with President Harry Truman's
administration, and the 1947 invasion of North Korea seemed to confirm Kennan's views{{fact}}.

==Conflicts==

===Early Fronts===

November 18, 1945, General Secretary of the [[Communist Party USA]] [[William Z. Foster]] told delegates to the National Convention that "on the international scale the key task is to stop American intervention in China." On December 4, 1945, the Communists staged a "Get Out of China Rally," while communist dominated [[labor union]]s put on work stoppages with the same slogan. Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Owen Lattimore]] in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref> New York Compass, Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

[[Chiang Kai-shek]] was caught between two wars—a war on China by Japan and a war on China by the Soviet Union. American leaders refused to see this and insisted on acting in the illusion that China was fighting the Japanese only and that Soviet Union was an ally. Then came the startling realization that the United States, too, like China, were engaged in two wars in Asia, one against a common enemy, Japan; the other against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States, with its ally China, fought the Japanese. But all the time the Soviet Union, with its satellite Comintern army in China, was fighting both China and the United States. The [[iron curtain]] that, with the [[Yalta agreement]], was rung down over American allies in Europe—[[Poland]] and [[Czechoslovakia]] and other little countries—now fell on China.

===Major Cold War Fronts===
====In the Americas====
* [[Cuban Revolution]] / [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
* [[Nicaraguan Revolution]], [[Contras]]
* [[Salvadorian Civil War]]

====In Asia====
* [[Korean War]] (1950-53)
* [[Vietnam War]] (1965-75)
* [[Afghanistan War]], (1978-92)

==== In Africa====
* [[Angolan Civil War]]

====In Europe====
* [[Berlin Wall]]

===The Shootdown of Korean Airlines Flight 007===

Considered by many as the second or third most critical single incident of the Cold War, after the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962 and [[Able Archer 83]], the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] on Sept. 1, 1983 would signal a change in the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prompted by the subsequent deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in West Germany just 6 minutes from launch to Moscow. This precipitated the era of confrontation of 1983 and 1984 between the two nations. The world would once again witness what it saw as the blatent barbarity of what President Reagan had termed the "Evil Empire". Though the world had accepted that KAL 007 had exploded and crashed with no survivors of the 269 passengers and crew, there has most recently surfaced evidence to the contrary [http://www.rescue007.org/]. Democratic congressman from Georgia [[Larry McDonald]], a passenger aboard KAL 007, was the only member of Congress to have been reported killed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

==Breakup of the Soviet Union and American Victory==

The Western democracies, under the leadership of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Cold War. An important element of this victory was Reagan's decision to commit to increased military spending, such as the "[[Strategic Defense Initiative|Star Wars]]" program. Reagan's decisions to intervene in Afghanistan while pursuing an arms race exacerbated structural weaknesses in the Soviet economy and pushed the USSR into an early decline.

In 1985, [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] become General Secretary of the Communist Party.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/11/newsid_2538000/2538327.stm Gorbachev Becomes Soviet Leader], ''BBC'', 11 March, 1985.</ref> Recognizing the systemic problems faced by Soviet society, he attempted the twin reform programs of [[Glasnost]] (openness) and [[Perestroika]] (restructuring). Combined with the disaster at Chernobyl and losses in the war in Afghanistan, the effects of Gorbachev's reforms quickly spun out of control. Glasnost allowed media attention to focus on problems which had long been buried by the state's propaganda regime, causing widespread dissatisfaction among Soviet citizens. In 1989, a wave of constituent republics began to seek autonomy from the Soviet Union. Most attempts at succession (with the exception of Lithuania) were met with no Soviet resistance.

A failed coup attempting to halt the USSR's decline brought [[Boris Yeltsin]] to power. Yeltsin oversaw further economic reforms, though he was heavily criticized for his reliance on "shock therapy", which caused severe economic disruption to ordinary Russians while allowing oligarchs to gain control of state industries.
The '''[[Cold War]]''' is well documented by political scientists and historians. Following are selected major scholarly books and articles in English, and some major memoirs.

==Bibliography==
* Bacevich, Andrew J., ed. ''The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231131585/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00D#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Ball, S. J. ''The Cold War: An International History, 1947–1991'' (1998), British perspective; short summary; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-cold-war-an-international-history-1947-1991-by-s-j-ball.jsp online edition]
* Boyle Peter G. ''American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism.'' 1993.
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1989)
* Crockatt Richard. ''The Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991.'' 1995. [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-War-United-Politics/dp/0415135540/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967506&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Friedman, Norman. ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War''. (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-War-Conflict-Strategy-Cold/dp/1591142873/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967539&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ''The Cold War. A New History'', 2005. [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-New-History/dp/B000GUJH8A/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History'' 2nd ed. (1990)
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100560159 online edition]
* Kegley Jr., Charles W. ed., ''The Long Postwar Peace.'' 1991
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Cold-War/dp/0231107730/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967647&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1992'' 9th ed. (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Russia-Cold-1945-2002-Updated/dp/0072849037/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_1/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Mankind-United-States-Soviet/dp/0809097176/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567573&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lundestad, Geir. ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Politics since 1945'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/East-West-North-South-International/dp/1412907489/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193964045&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War.'' 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98945969&oplinknum=8 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Every-Front-Making-Unmaking-Cold/dp/0393030601/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967604&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78888203 online edition]
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Westad, Odd Arne ''The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/052170314X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]

==National perspectives==
===Soviet ===
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gorlizki, Yoram, and Oleg Khlevniuk. ''Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/read/105899376 online edition]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''Russia's Road to the Cold War: Diplomacy, Warfare, and the Politics of Communism, 1941–1945'' (1979)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Soviet-Insecurity-Stalin/dp/0195126599/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193676128&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/98422373 online complete edition]
* Nation, R. Craig. ''Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991'' (1992)
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004), Pulitzer Prize; [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567469&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917–1973'', 2nd ed. (1974)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)

===American===
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Containment-Critical-Appraisal-American/dp/019517447X/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael J. ''America in the World: The Historiography of US Foreign Relations since 1941'' (1996), scholarly articles reprinted from the journal ''Diplomatic History'' [http://www.amazon.com/America-World-Historiography-Foreign-Relations/dp/0521498074/ref=sr_1_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007)
* Lewis, Adrian R. ''The American Culture of War: The History of U.S. Military Force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/American-Culture-War-Military-Operation/dp/0415979757/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan'' (1988)

===British ===
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Clarke, Bob. ''Four Minute Warning: Britain's Cold War '' (2005)
* Deighton Anne. "The 'Frozen Front': The Labour Government, the Division of Germany and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1947," ''International Affairs'' 65, 1987: 449-465.
* Young, John W. ''Winston Churchill's Last Campaign: Britain and the Cold War, 1951-5'' Clarendon Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9663209 online edition]

===China===
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Roberts, Priscilla. ''Behind the Bamboo Curtain: China, Vietnam, and the Cold War'' (2006)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Zhai, Qiang. ''China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/China-Vietnam-Wars-1950-1975-History/dp/0807848425/ref=sr_1_34/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675671&sr=1-34 excerpt and text search]

===Europe===
* Allen, Debra J. ''The Oder-Neisse Line: The United States, Poland, and Germany in the Cold War'' (2003) 309 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Oder-Neisse-Line-Germany-Contributions-History/dp/0313323593/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967768&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Borhi, László. ''Hungary in the Cold War, 1945-1956'' (2004) 352 pages
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Crace, Sylvia E. and John O. Crane. ''Czechoslovakia: Anvil of the Cold War,'' 1991
* Judt, Tony. ''Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945'', (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/B000GUJHIA/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_2/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Naimark, Norman, and Leonid Gibianskii. ''Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944-1949'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Establishment-Communist-Regimes-Eastern-1944-1949/dp/0813335345/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967826&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ninkovich, Frank. ''Germany and the United States: The Transformation of the German Question since 1945'' (1988)
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Turner, Henry Ashby. ''Germany from Partition to Reunification'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Germany-Partition-Reunification-Revised-Germanies/dp/0300053479/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967898&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Origins: to 1950==
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Beisner, Robert L. ''Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Dean-Acheson-Life-Cold-War/dp/0195045785/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Chen, Jian, ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Clemens, Diane Shaver. ''Yalta.'' 1970.
* Cumings, Bruce ''The Origins of the Korean War'' (2 vols., 1981–90), friendly to North Korea and hostile to US
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=89825298 online edition] [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00094 online at ACLS e-books]
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Xue Litai , ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993)
* Isaacson Walter, and Even Thomas. ''The Wise Men. Six Friends and the World They Made. Acheson, Bohlen, Harriman, Kennan, Lovett, McCloy.'' 1986.
* Leffler, Melvyn. ''A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration and the Cold War'' (1992). [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00097 online at ACLS e-books]
* Levering, Ralph, Vladamir Pechatnov, Verena Botzenhart-Viehe, and C. Earl Edmondson. ''Debating the Origins of the Cold War'' (2001)
* Yonosuke Nagai and Akira Iriye, eds., ''The Origins of the Cold War in Asia.'' 1977
* Trachtenberg, Marc. ''A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963'' (1999)
* Whitcomb, Roger S. ''The Cold War in Retrospect: The Formative Years'' Praeger Publishers, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26243570 online edition]

==1950s and 1960s==
* Beschloss, Michael. ''Kennedy v. Khrushchev: The Crisis Years, 1960–63'' (1991)
* Beschloss Michael. ''Mayday: Eisenhower, Kennedy and the U-2 Affair'' 1986.
* Brands, H. W. ''Cold Warriors. Eisenhower's Generation and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Brands, H. W. ''The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power '' (1997)
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict'', New York: Praeger (1961)
* Divine, Robert A. ''Eisenhower and the Cold War'' (1981)
* Divine, Robert A. ed., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis'' 2nd ed. (1988)
* Duiker William J. ''U.S. Containment Policy and the Conflict in Indochina.'' 1994.
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Fursenko, Aleksandr and Timothy Naftali. ''One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958–1964'' (1997)
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''The Diplomacy of the Crucial Decade: American Foreign Relations during the 1960s'' (1994)
* Navratil, Jaromir. ''The Prague Spring 68´'' (1998)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998)
* Melanson, Richard A. and David Mayers, eds., ''Reevaluating Eisenhower. American Foreign Policy in the 1950s'' (1986)
* Paterson, Thomas G. ed., ''Kennedy's Quest for Victory: American Foreign Policy, 1961–1963'' (1989).
* Reynolds, David, ed. ''The Origins of the Cold War in Europe: International Perspectives'' (1994)
* Williams, Kirrian. ''The Prague Spring and its Aftermath : Czechoslovak Politics, 1968–1970'' (1997)
===Korean War===
* Brune, Lester H. ed. ''The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/14647120 online edition]
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/100020811 online edition]
* Stueck, Jr. William W. ''The Korean War: An International History'' (1995)
* Stueck, Jr. William. ''Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/99794818 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Korean War'' (2002)

==Vietnam==
* Anderson, David L. ''Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War'' (2004).
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate'' (1991). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102078651 online edition]
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Herring, George C''. America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975'' (4th ed 2001), most widely used short history.
* Kahin, George McTurnan. ''Intervention: how America became involved in Vietnam'' (1986) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.02216 online at ACLS e-books]
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam: A History'' (1983), popular history by journalist; strong on Saigon's plans.
* Kutler, Stanley ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1996). essays by experts
* Lewy, Guenter. ''America in Vietnam'' (1978), defends U.S. actions.
* McMahon, Robert J. ''Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War: Documents and Essays'' (1995) textbook.
* Schulzinger, Robert D. ''Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975.'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59258841&oplinknum=2 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1998) 3 vol. reference set; also one-volume abridgement (2001).
* Tucker, Spencer. ''Vietnam.'' (1999) 226pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103499126# online edition]
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997)
* ''The Pentagon Papers'' (Gravel ed. 5 vol 1971); combination of narrative and secret documents compiled by Pentagon. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html excerpts]

==Détente: 1969–1979==
* Ash, Timothy Garton. ''In Europe's Name: Germany and the Divided Continent'' (1993)
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan'' 2nd ed (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29069917 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Detente-Confrontation-American-Soviet-Relations-Reagan/dp/0815730411/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578168&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimäki, Jussi. ''The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy,'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108656972 online edition]
* Isaacson, Walter. ''Kissinger'' (1992); [http://www.amazon.com/Kissinger-Biography-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743286979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577598&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Litwak, Robert S. ''Détente and the Nixon Doctrine: American Foreign Policy and the Pursuit of Stability, 1969-1976'' (1986)
* Nelson, Keith L. ''The Making of Détente: Soviet-American Relations in the Shadow of Vietnam'' (1995)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Henry Kissinger and the American Century'' (2007)
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente.'' (2003), focus on student revolts of 1968 [http://www.amazon.com/Power-Protest-Global-Revolution-Detente/dp/0674017633/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578729&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Dangerous Relations. The Soviet Union in World Politics, 1970–1982'' (1983)
===Primary sources and memoirs===
* Arbatov, Georgi. ''The System: An Insider's Life in Soviet Politics'' (1993)
* Kissinger, Henry. ''White House Years'' (1979); ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); ''Years of Renewal'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/075675383X/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Nixon, Richard. ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577855&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Second Cold War: 1979–1986==
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Mower, A. Glenn Jr. ''Human Rights and American Foreign Policy: The Carter and Reagan Experiences'' ( 1987),
* Smith, Gaddis. ''Morality, Reason and Power:American Diplomacy in the Carter Years'' (1986).
* Westad, O. A., ''The Fall of Detente: Soviet-American Relations During the Carter Years'' (1997)

==End of Cold War: 1986–1991==
* Beschloss, Michael, and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels:The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War'' (1993)
* Bialer, Seweryn and Michael Mandelbaum, eds. ''Gorbachev's Russia and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/United-States-End-Cold-Reconsiderations/dp/0195085515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930854&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transition-American-Soviet-Relations-Cold/dp/0815730608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930894&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael ed. ''The End of the Cold War. Its Meaning and Implications'' (1992) articles from ''Diplomatic History'' online at JSTOR; [http://www.amazon.com/End-Cold-War-Meaning-Implications/dp/052143128X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930923&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kyvig, David ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-World-David-E-Kyvig/dp/0275935655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930956&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Autopsy of an Empire'' (1995) by US ambassador to Moscow
* Matlock, Jack F. "The End of the Cold War," ''Harvard International Review,'' Vol. 23, 2001 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000901782 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Pons, S., Romero, F., ''Reinterpreting the End of the Cold War: Issues, Interpretations, Periodizations'', (2005)
* Wallander, Celeste A. "Western Policy and the Demise of the Soviet Union," ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 5.4 (2003) 137-177 in [[Project Muse]]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807830984/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Intelligence==
* Aldrich, Richard J. ''The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence'' (2002).
* Ambrose, Stephen E. ''Ike's Spies: Eisenhower and the Intelligence Establishment'' (1981).
* Andrew, Christopher and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB'' (1999)
** Mitrokhin. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Mitrokhin Archive'' (1999). vol 1, on KGB
* Andrew, Christopher, and Oleg Gordievsky. ''KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev'' (1990).
* Bogle, Lori, ed. ''Cold War Espionage and Spying'' (2001), essays
* Dorril, Stephen. ''MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service'' (2000).
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: Project Muse and Ebsco
* Gates, Robert M. ''From The Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story Of Five Presidents And How They Won The Cold War'' (1997)
* Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. ''Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America'' (1999).
* Helms, Richard. ''A Look over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency'' (2003)
* Koehler, John O. ''Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police'' (1999)
* Murphy, David E., Sergei A. Kondrashev, and George Bailey. ''Battleground Berlin: CIA vs. KGB in the Cold War'' (1997).
* Prados, John. ''Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II'' (1996)
* Richelson, Jeffrey T. ''Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea.'' (2006). 702 pp.
* Rositzke, Harry. ''The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action'' (1988)
* Trahair, Richard C. S. ''Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies and Secret Operations'' (2004), by an Australian scholar; contains historiographical introduction [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106805285 online edition]
* Weinstein, Allen, and Alexander Vassiliev. ''The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era'' (1999).

==Economics and social Factors==
* Engerman, David C. "The Romance of Economic Development and New Histories of the Cold War.: ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 23-54. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: Ebsco
* Heiss, Mary Ann. "The Economic Cold War: America, Britain, and East-West Trade, 1948–63" ''The Historian'', Vol. 65, (2003)
* Hogan, Michael J. ''The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952'' (1989)
* Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye. ''Power and Interdependence'' (3rd Edition) (2000)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''Butter and Guns: America's Cold War Economic Diplomacy'' (1997)
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Morgan, Patrick M. and Keith L. Nelson (eds); ''Re-Viewing the Cold War: Domestic Factors and Foreign Policy in the East-West Confrontation'' (1997)

==Arms Race, nuclear strategies, weapons systems==
* Arnold, Lorna, with Pyne, Katherine. ''Britain and the H-Bomb.'' Palgrave, 2001. 273 pp.
* Atkins, Stephen E. ''Historical Encyclopedia of Atomic Energy.'' Greenwood, 2000. 491 pp.
* Ball, Desmond. ''Politics and Force Levels: The Strategic Missile Program of the Kennedy Administration'' (1980)
* Baylis, John. ''Ambiguity and Deterrence: British Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1964.'' Oxford U. Press, 1996. 495 pp.
* Betts, Richard K. ''Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance'' (Brookings Institution, 1987).
* Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin ''American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer'' (2006) Pulitzer Prize
* Bukharin, Oleg et al. ''Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.'' MIT Press, 2001. 693 pp.
* Bundy, McGeorge. ''Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years'' (1988).
* Craig, Campbell. ''Destroying the Village: Eisenhower and Thermonuclear War.'' Columbia University Press. 1998. 216pp.
* Carlisle, Rodney P., ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Atomic Age.'' Facts on File, 2001. 400 pp. numerous inaccuracies
* DeGroot, Gerard J. ''The Bomb: A Life'' (2006), focus on 1950s
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy'' (1983)
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ed. ''Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy Since 1945'' Oxford U. Press, 1999. 398 pp.
* Goldfischer, David. ''The Best Defense: Policy Alternatives for U.S. Nuclear Security from the 1950s to the 1990s.'' Cornell U. Press, 1993. 283 pp.
* Goodchild, Peter. ''Edward Teller: The Real Dr. Strangelove.'' Harvard U. Press, 2004. 469 pp
* Heuser, Beatrice. ''NATO, Britain, France and the FRG: Nuclear Strategies and Forces for Europe, 1949-2000.'' St. Martin's, 1997. 256 pp.
* Heuser, Beatrice. "The Development of Nato's Nuclear Strategy." ''Contemporary European History" 1995 4(1): 37-66. Issn: 0960-7773
* Hewlett, Richard, and Jack Holl. ''Atoms for Peace and War'' 3 vol; official history of Atomic Energy Commission (which built all the American bombs) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00537 1953-61 volume online]
* Holloway, David . ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1959–1956'' (1994)
* Jervis, Robert. ''The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon'' (Cornell University Press, 1989).
* Levine, Alan J. ''The Missile and Space Race.'' Praeger, 1994. 247 pp.
* Lebow, Richard Ned and Stein, Janice Gross. "Deterrence and the Cold War." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1995 110(2): 157-181. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: Jstor and Ebsco
* Mathers, Jennifer G. ''The Russian Nuclear Shield from Stalin to Yeltsin.'' St. Martin's, 2000. 227 pp.
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Miller, Jerry. ''Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers: How the Bomb Saved Naval Aviation.'' Smithsonian Inst. Press, 2001. 296 pp.
* Peden, G. C. ''Arms, Economics, and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs'' (2007); 398 pp.
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''Return to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1981-1999.'' Oxford U. Press, (2000). 294 pp.
* Preble, Christopher A. ''John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap.'' Northern Illinois U. Press, 2004. 244 pp.
* Rhodes, Richard. ''The Making of the Atomic Bomb,'' Pulitzer Prize
* Snead, David L. ''The Gaither Committee, Eisenhower, and the Cold War.'' Ohio State U. Press, 1999. 286 pp.
* Spinardi, Graham. ''From Polaris to Trident: The Development of U.S. Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1994. 253 pp.
* Stumpf, David K. ''Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program.'' U. of Arkansas Press, 2000. 320 pp.
* Terriff, Terry. ''The Nixon Administration and the Making of U.S. Nuclear Strategy.'' Cornell U. Press, 1995. 252 pp.
* Williamson, Samuel R., Jr. and Reardon, Steven L. ''The Origins of U.S. Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953.'' St. Martin's, 1993. 224 pp.

===Space Race===
* Cadbury, Deborah. ''Space Race: The Epic Battle between America and the Soviet Union for Dominion of Space'' (2006)
* Futrell, Robert Frank. ''Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic thinking in the United States Air Force: 1907-1960'' (1989)
* Logsdon, John M.. Robert William Smith, Roger D. Launius, ''Reconsidering Sputnik: Forty Years Since the Soviet Satellite'' (2000)
* McDougall, Walter A. ''The Heavens And the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age'' (ebooks 2001)
* Reeves, Robert. ''The Superpower Space Race: An Explosive Rivalry through the Solar System.'' 1994. 437 pp.

==Rhetoric, popular culture==
* Boyer, Paul S. ''By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age'' (1994)
* Carpenter, Charles A. ''Dramatists and the Bomb: American and British Playwrights Confront the Nuclear Age, 1945-1964.'' Greenwood, 1999. 183 pp.
* Gery, John. ''Nuclear Annihilation and Contemporary American Poetry: Ways of Nothingness.'' U. Press of Florida, 1996. 235 pp.
* Henriksen, Margot A. ''Dr. Strangelove's America: Society and Culture in the Atomic Age.'' U. of California Press, 1997. 451 pp.
* Kirby, Dianne ed. ''Religion and the Cold War'' (2003) 272 pp.
* Major, Patrick. "Future Perfect?: Communist Science Fiction in the Cold War." ''Cold War History'' 2003 4(1): 71-96. Issn: 1468-2745 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Marsh, Rosalind J. ''Soviet Fiction Since Stalin: science, politics and literature'' (1986)
* McConachie, Bruce. ''American Theatre and the Culture of the Cold War: Producing and Contesting Containment, 1947-1962.'' University of Iowa Press, 2003; 364pp
* Medhurst, Martin J. ''Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology'' Michigan State University Press, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11078688 online edition]
* Miller, D. Quentin. ''John Updike and the Cold War: Drawing the Iron Curtain'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106110847 online edition]
* Mitter, Patrick Major Rana. ''Across the Blocs. Exploring Comparative Cold War Cultural and Social History'' (2004) 150pp; [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22&filter=all&start=1&t=jNpLfQ3aF3p-fYWfbfSXHg&sq=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22 10% excerpt and text search]
* Mulvihill, Jason. "James Bond's Cold War Part I" ''Journal of Instructional Media'', Vol. 28, (2001)
* Parker, Stephen R., Rhys W. Williams, Colin Riordan. ''German Writers and the Cold War, 1945-61'' (1992) 250pp
* Resch, John P., et al. ''Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront'' (2005), vol 4: 1946 to Present
* Schwartz, Richard Alan. ''Cold War Culture: Media and the Arts, 1945–1990'' (2000)
* Seed, David. ''American Science Fiction and the Cold War'' (2002)
* Shapiro Jerome F. ''Atomic Bomb Cinema: The Apocalyptic Imagination on Film'' (2001)
* Stone, Albert E. ''Literary Aftershocks: American Writers, Readers, and the Bomb.'' (1994).
* Ventresca, Robert A. "The Virgin and the Bear: Religion, Society and the Cold War in Italy." ''Journal of Social History.'' Volume: 37#2 (2003) pp 439+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002442955 online edition]
* Whitfield, Stephen J. ''The Culture of the Cold War'' (1996)
* Winkler, Allan M. ''Life under a Cloud: American Anxiety about the Atom.'' (1993). 290 pp.
* Wittner, Lawrence S. ''The Struggle against the Bomb.'' 3 vol (1993-2003). antiwar movements in US and Europe
* Zeman, Scott C. "I Was a Cold War Monster: Horror Films, Eroticism and the Cold War Imagination," ''Journal of Popular Culture,'' August, 2004

==Primary sources: Documents and memoirs==
* Acheson, Dean . ''Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department'' (1992). [http://www.amazon.com/Present-Creation-Years-State-Department/dp/0393304124/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967222&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Baruch, Bernard . ''The Public Years'' (1960).
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Charles Bohlen . ''Witness to History, 1929-1969.'' 1973
* Eden, Anthony . ''The Memoirs of Anthony Eden, Earl of Avon. Vol. 2: The Reckoning.'' London: 1965.
* Eisenhower, Dwight D. [http://www.questia.com/read/16309287 ''The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956.'' (1963) online edition]; ''The White House Years: Waging Peace, 1957-1961.'' (1965).
* Etzold, Thomas and John Lewis Gaddis, eds., ''Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945–1950'' (1978)
* Chang, Laurence and Peter Kornbluh, eds., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1952'' (1985)
* Kennan George F. ''Memoirs, 1925-1950.'' (1957) [ excerpt and text search]
* Djilas, Milovan . ''Conversations with Stalin.'' 1962, Yugoslav diplomat [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Stalin-Milovan-Djilas/dp/0156225913/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967368&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimaki, Jussi M. and Odd Arne Westad, eds. ''The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts'' (2004)
* Khrushchev, Nikita. ''Khrushchev Remembers'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1991); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1987); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost Tapes'' ed. Jerrold Schechter (1989)
* Khrushchev, Sergei. ''Khrushchev on Khrushchev: An Inside Account of the Man and His Era,'' (1990)
* Kissinger, Henry, vol 1 ''White House Years'' (1979); vol 2 ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); vol 3 ''Years of Renewal 1974–1976'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/0684855720/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594084&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search vol 3]
* Nixon, Richard . ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594114&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)

==Historiography==
* Ferrell, Robert H. ''Harry S. Truman and the Cold War Revisionists.'' (2006). 142 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Truman-Cold-War-Revisionists/dp/0826216536/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594174&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila. "Russia's Twentieth Century in History and Historiography," ''The Australian Journal of Politics and History'', Vol. 46, 2000
*Gaddis, John Lewis, ''We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History'', (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/We-Now-Know-Rethinking-Relations/dp/0198780710/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594208&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22791452 online edition] * Gaddis, John Lewis. "The Emerging Post-Revisionist Synthesis on the Origins of the Cold War," ''Diplomatic History,'' Summer 1983: 171-190.
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy.'' (1982). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: [[Project Muse]]
* Kaplan, Lawrence S. ''American Historians and the Atlantic Alliance,'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14391678 online edition]
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack E. "The End of the Cold War" ''Harvard International Review'', Vol. 23 (2001)
* Olesen, Thorsten B. Ed. ''The Cold War and the Nordic Countries: Historiography at a Crossroads.'' Odense: U Southern Denmark Press, 2004. Pp. 194. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5010023306 online review]
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Trachtenberg, Marc. "The Marshall Plan as Tragedy." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2005 7(1): 135-140. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: in [[Project Muse]]
* Walker, J. Samuel. "Historians and Cold War Origins: The New Consensus", in Gerald K. Haines and J. Samuel Walker, eds., ''American Foreign Relations: A Historiographical Review'' (1981), 207–236.
* Westad, Arne Odd. "The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms," ''Diplomatic History,'' 2000, Vol. 24 in EBSCO
* Westad, Arne Odd, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) essays by scholars
* White, Timothy J. "Cold War Historiography: New Evidence Behind Traditional Typographies" ''International Social Science Review, (2000)
* William, William Appleman. ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy'' (1958) (1988 edition)
** Berger, Henry W. ed. ''A William Appleman Williams Reader'' (1992)
** ''Redefining the Past: Essays in Diplomatic History in Honor of William Appleman Williams''. Lloyd C. Gardner (ed.) (1986)
* Westad, Odd Arne, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Reviewing-Cold-War-Approaches-Interpretations/dp/0714681202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594380&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Xia, Yafeng. "The Study of Cold War International History in China: A Review of the Last Twenty Years," ''Journal of Cold War Studies''10#1 Winter 2008, pp. 81-115 in [[Project Muse]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/index2.htm Berlin 1969 - midpoint of the Cold War]

== See Also==
*[[Joseph McCarthy]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Berlin Wall]]

[[category:wars]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:Military History]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

Cold War

2009-04-17T16:52:19Z

ETrundel: rmv vandalism

The '''Warm War''' was political, economic and psychological conflict, together with regional hot wars, between the [[United States]],[[NATO]] and other allies, and the [[USSR]], [[China]] and their allies between 1947 and 1989.

Although there was no direct fighting between the superpowers, each country was involved in a number of [[proxy conflict]]s, most notably in [[Vietnam]], [[Korea]] and [[Afghanistan]]. The most tense moment between the two main powers came in 1962 during the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], which ended without escalation into warfare.

The Cold War was marked by a nuclear [[arms race]] between the two super-powers, and the unchecked [[proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]] was a cause for concern in many quarters. The Cold War also was marked by high levels of [[espionage]].

The root of the Cold War lies in [[Soviet]] [[expansionism]] and [[subversion]] of so-called "[[bourgeois regime]]s".

The tension during the war fluctuated, with the super powers going through periods of heightened conflict and also periods of improved relations. It ended on November 11, 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet overseas empire. History closed the books on the Soviet Union itself on December 25, 1991. It was replaced by 15 smaller countries, especially [[Russia]], which all rejected Communism and the Cold War.
==Causes==
Following the Russian Revolution in the closing days of [[World War I]], President [[Woodrow Wilson]] refused to recognized the communist government of Russia and contributed troops in support of the White Russians. Not until 1933 did the US recognize the Soviet government, and relations did not truly warm until Hitler's invasion of Russia.

While the US and the UK cooperated with Candyland throughout [[World War II]], tensions began to deteriorate soon after the end of the conflict, notably over the division of Germany and the occupation status of Europe. In 1946, George Kennan, a [[Department of State]] [[diplomat]] stationed in [[Moscow]], wrote the ''Long Telegram'', in which argued for the necessity of [[Containment|containing]] the Soviet Union. His cable resonated with President Harry Truman's
administration, and the 1947 invasion of North Korea seemed to confirm Kennan's views{{fact}}.

==Conflicts==

===Early Fronts===

November 18, 1945, General Secretary of the [[Communist Party USA]] [[William Z. Foster]] told delegates to the National Convention that "on the international scale the key task is to stop American intervention in China." On December 4, 1945, the Communists staged a "Get Out of China Rally," while communist dominated [[labor union]]s put on work stoppages with the same slogan. Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Owen Lattimore]] in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref> New York Compass, Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

[[Chiang Kai-shek]] was caught between two wars—a war on China by Japan and a war on China by the Soviet Union. American leaders refused to see this and insisted on acting in the illusion that China was fighting the Japanese only and that Soviet Union was an ally. Then came the startling realization that the United States, too, like China, were engaged in two wars in Asia, one against a common enemy, Japan; the other against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States, with its ally China, fought the Japanese. But all the time the Soviet Union, with its satellite Comintern army in China, was fighting both China and the United States. The [[iron curtain]] that, with the [[Yalta agreement]], was rung down over American allies in Europe—[[Poland]] and [[Czechoslovakia]] and other little countries—now fell on China.

===Major Cold War Fronts===
====In the Americas====
* [[Cuban Revolution]] / [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
* [[Nicaraguan Revolution]], [[Contras]]
* [[Salvadorian Civil War]]

====In Asia====
* [[Korean War]] (1950-53)
* [[Vietnam War]] (1965-75)
* [[Afghanistan War]], (1978-92)

==== In Africa====
* [[Angolan Civil War]]

====In Europe====
* [[Berlin Wall]]

===The Shootdown of Korean Airlines Flight 007===

Considered by many as the second or third most critical single incident of the Cold War, after the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962 and [[Able Archer 83]], the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] on Sept. 1, 1983 would signal a change in the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prompted by the subsequent deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in West Germany just 6 minutes from launch to Moscow. This precipitated the era of confrontation of 1983 and 1984 between the two nations. The world would once again witness what it saw as the blatent barbarity of what President Reagan had termed the "Evil Empire". Though the world had accepted that KAL 007 had exploded and crashed with no survivors of the 269 passengers and crew, there has most recently surfaced evidence to the contrary [http://www.rescue007.org/]. Democratic congressman from Georgia [[Larry McDonald]], a passenger aboard KAL 007, was the only member of Congress to have been reported killed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

==Breakup of the Soviet Union and American Victory==

The Western democracies, under the leadership of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Cold War. An important element of this victory was Reagan's decision to commit to increased military spending, such as the "[[Strategic Defense Initiative|Star Wars]]" program. Reagan's decisions to intervene in Afghanistan while pursuing an arms race exacerbated structural weaknesses in the Soviet economy and pushed the USSR into an early decline.

In 1985, [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] become General Secretary of the Communist Party.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/11/newsid_2538000/2538327.stm Gorbachev Becomes Soviet Leader], ''BBC'', 11 March, 1985.</ref> Recognizing the systemic problems faced by Soviet society, he attempted the twin reform programs of [[Glasnost]] (openness) and [[Perestroika]] (restructuring). Combined with the disaster at Chernobyl and losses in the war in Afghanistan, the effects of Gorbachev's reforms quickly spun out of control. Glasnost allowed media attention to focus on problems which had long been buried by the state's propaganda regime, causing widespread dissatisfaction among Soviet citizens. In 1989, a wave of constituent republics began to seek autonomy from the Soviet Union. Most attempts at succession (with the exception of Lithuania) were met with no Soviet resistance.

A failed coup attempting to halt the USSR's decline brought [[Boris Yeltsin]] to power. Yeltsin oversaw further economic reforms, though he was heavily criticized for his reliance on "shock therapy", which caused severe economic disruption to ordinary Russians while allowing oligarchs to gain control of state industries.
The '''[[Cold War]]''' is well documented by political scientists and historians. Following are selected major scholarly books and articles in English, and some major memoirs.

==Bibliography==
* Bacevich, Andrew J., ed. ''The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231131585/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00D#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Ball, S. J. ''The Cold War: An International History, 1947–1991'' (1998), British perspective; short summary; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-cold-war-an-international-history-1947-1991-by-s-j-ball.jsp online edition]
* Boyle Peter G. ''American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism.'' 1993.
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1989)
* Crockatt Richard. ''The Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991.'' 1995. [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-War-United-Politics/dp/0415135540/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967506&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Friedman, Norman. ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War''. (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-War-Conflict-Strategy-Cold/dp/1591142873/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967539&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ''The Cold War. A New History'', 2005. [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-New-History/dp/B000GUJH8A/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History'' 2nd ed. (1990)
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100560159 online edition]
* Kegley Jr., Charles W. ed., ''The Long Postwar Peace.'' 1991
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Cold-War/dp/0231107730/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967647&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1992'' 9th ed. (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Russia-Cold-1945-2002-Updated/dp/0072849037/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_1/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Mankind-United-States-Soviet/dp/0809097176/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567573&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lundestad, Geir. ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Politics since 1945'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/East-West-North-South-International/dp/1412907489/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193964045&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War.'' 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98945969&oplinknum=8 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Every-Front-Making-Unmaking-Cold/dp/0393030601/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967604&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78888203 online edition]
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Westad, Odd Arne ''The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/052170314X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]

==National perspectives==
===Soviet ===
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gorlizki, Yoram, and Oleg Khlevniuk. ''Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/read/105899376 online edition]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''Russia's Road to the Cold War: Diplomacy, Warfare, and the Politics of Communism, 1941–1945'' (1979)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Soviet-Insecurity-Stalin/dp/0195126599/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193676128&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/98422373 online complete edition]
* Nation, R. Craig. ''Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991'' (1992)
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004), Pulitzer Prize; [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567469&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917–1973'', 2nd ed. (1974)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)

===American===
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Containment-Critical-Appraisal-American/dp/019517447X/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael J. ''America in the World: The Historiography of US Foreign Relations since 1941'' (1996), scholarly articles reprinted from the journal ''Diplomatic History'' [http://www.amazon.com/America-World-Historiography-Foreign-Relations/dp/0521498074/ref=sr_1_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007)
* Lewis, Adrian R. ''The American Culture of War: The History of U.S. Military Force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/American-Culture-War-Military-Operation/dp/0415979757/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan'' (1988)

===British ===
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Clarke, Bob. ''Four Minute Warning: Britain's Cold War '' (2005)
* Deighton Anne. "The 'Frozen Front': The Labour Government, the Division of Germany and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1947," ''International Affairs'' 65, 1987: 449-465.
* Young, John W. ''Winston Churchill's Last Campaign: Britain and the Cold War, 1951-5'' Clarendon Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9663209 online edition]

===China===
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Roberts, Priscilla. ''Behind the Bamboo Curtain: China, Vietnam, and the Cold War'' (2006)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Zhai, Qiang. ''China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/China-Vietnam-Wars-1950-1975-History/dp/0807848425/ref=sr_1_34/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675671&sr=1-34 excerpt and text search]

===Europe===
* Allen, Debra J. ''The Oder-Neisse Line: The United States, Poland, and Germany in the Cold War'' (2003) 309 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Oder-Neisse-Line-Germany-Contributions-History/dp/0313323593/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967768&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Borhi, László. ''Hungary in the Cold War, 1945-1956'' (2004) 352 pages
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Crace, Sylvia E. and John O. Crane. ''Czechoslovakia: Anvil of the Cold War,'' 1991
* Judt, Tony. ''Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945'', (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/B000GUJHIA/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_2/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Naimark, Norman, and Leonid Gibianskii. ''Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944-1949'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Establishment-Communist-Regimes-Eastern-1944-1949/dp/0813335345/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967826&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ninkovich, Frank. ''Germany and the United States: The Transformation of the German Question since 1945'' (1988)
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Turner, Henry Ashby. ''Germany from Partition to Reunification'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Germany-Partition-Reunification-Revised-Germanies/dp/0300053479/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967898&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Origins: to 1950==
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Beisner, Robert L. ''Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Dean-Acheson-Life-Cold-War/dp/0195045785/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Chen, Jian, ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Clemens, Diane Shaver. ''Yalta.'' 1970.
* Cumings, Bruce ''The Origins of the Korean War'' (2 vols., 1981–90), friendly to North Korea and hostile to US
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=89825298 online edition] [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00094 online at ACLS e-books]
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Xue Litai , ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993)
* Isaacson Walter, and Even Thomas. ''The Wise Men. Six Friends and the World They Made. Acheson, Bohlen, Harriman, Kennan, Lovett, McCloy.'' 1986.
* Leffler, Melvyn. ''A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration and the Cold War'' (1992). [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00097 online at ACLS e-books]
* Levering, Ralph, Vladamir Pechatnov, Verena Botzenhart-Viehe, and C. Earl Edmondson. ''Debating the Origins of the Cold War'' (2001)
* Yonosuke Nagai and Akira Iriye, eds., ''The Origins of the Cold War in Asia.'' 1977
* Trachtenberg, Marc. ''A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963'' (1999)
* Whitcomb, Roger S. ''The Cold War in Retrospect: The Formative Years'' Praeger Publishers, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26243570 online edition]

==1950s and 1960s==
* Beschloss, Michael. ''Kennedy v. Khrushchev: The Crisis Years, 1960–63'' (1991)
* Beschloss Michael. ''Mayday: Eisenhower, Kennedy and the U-2 Affair'' 1986.
* Brands, H. W. ''Cold Warriors. Eisenhower's Generation and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Brands, H. W. ''The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power '' (1997)
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict'', New York: Praeger (1961)
* Divine, Robert A. ''Eisenhower and the Cold War'' (1981)
* Divine, Robert A. ed., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis'' 2nd ed. (1988)
* Duiker William J. ''U.S. Containment Policy and the Conflict in Indochina.'' 1994.
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Fursenko, Aleksandr and Timothy Naftali. ''One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958–1964'' (1997)
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''The Diplomacy of the Crucial Decade: American Foreign Relations during the 1960s'' (1994)
* Navratil, Jaromir. ''The Prague Spring 68´'' (1998)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998)
* Melanson, Richard A. and David Mayers, eds., ''Reevaluating Eisenhower. American Foreign Policy in the 1950s'' (1986)
* Paterson, Thomas G. ed., ''Kennedy's Quest for Victory: American Foreign Policy, 1961–1963'' (1989).
* Reynolds, David, ed. ''The Origins of the Cold War in Europe: International Perspectives'' (1994)
* Williams, Kirrian. ''The Prague Spring and its Aftermath : Czechoslovak Politics, 1968–1970'' (1997)
===Korean War===
* Brune, Lester H. ed. ''The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/14647120 online edition]
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/100020811 online edition]
* Stueck, Jr. William W. ''The Korean War: An International History'' (1995)
* Stueck, Jr. William. ''Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/99794818 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Korean War'' (2002)

==Vietnam==
* Anderson, David L. ''Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War'' (2004).
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate'' (1991). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102078651 online edition]
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Herring, George C''. America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975'' (4th ed 2001), most widely used short history.
* Kahin, George McTurnan. ''Intervention: how America became involved in Vietnam'' (1986) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.02216 online at ACLS e-books]
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam: A History'' (1983), popular history by journalist; strong on Saigon's plans.
* Kutler, Stanley ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1996). essays by experts
* Lewy, Guenter. ''America in Vietnam'' (1978), defends U.S. actions.
* McMahon, Robert J. ''Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War: Documents and Essays'' (1995) textbook.
* Schulzinger, Robert D. ''Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975.'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59258841&oplinknum=2 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1998) 3 vol. reference set; also one-volume abridgement (2001).
* Tucker, Spencer. ''Vietnam.'' (1999) 226pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103499126# online edition]
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997)
* ''The Pentagon Papers'' (Gravel ed. 5 vol 1971); combination of narrative and secret documents compiled by Pentagon. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html excerpts]

==Détente: 1969–1979==
* Ash, Timothy Garton. ''In Europe's Name: Germany and the Divided Continent'' (1993)
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan'' 2nd ed (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29069917 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Detente-Confrontation-American-Soviet-Relations-Reagan/dp/0815730411/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578168&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimäki, Jussi. ''The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy,'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108656972 online edition]
* Isaacson, Walter. ''Kissinger'' (1992); [http://www.amazon.com/Kissinger-Biography-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743286979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577598&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Litwak, Robert S. ''Détente and the Nixon Doctrine: American Foreign Policy and the Pursuit of Stability, 1969-1976'' (1986)
* Nelson, Keith L. ''The Making of Détente: Soviet-American Relations in the Shadow of Vietnam'' (1995)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Henry Kissinger and the American Century'' (2007)
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente.'' (2003), focus on student revolts of 1968 [http://www.amazon.com/Power-Protest-Global-Revolution-Detente/dp/0674017633/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578729&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Dangerous Relations. The Soviet Union in World Politics, 1970–1982'' (1983)
===Primary sources and memoirs===
* Arbatov, Georgi. ''The System: An Insider's Life in Soviet Politics'' (1993)
* Kissinger, Henry. ''White House Years'' (1979); ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); ''Years of Renewal'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/075675383X/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Nixon, Richard. ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577855&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Second Cold War: 1979–1986==
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Mower, A. Glenn Jr. ''Human Rights and American Foreign Policy: The Carter and Reagan Experiences'' ( 1987),
* Smith, Gaddis. ''Morality, Reason and Power:American Diplomacy in the Carter Years'' (1986).
* Westad, O. A., ''The Fall of Detente: Soviet-American Relations During the Carter Years'' (1997)

==End of Cold War: 1986–1991==
* Beschloss, Michael, and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels:The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War'' (1993)
* Bialer, Seweryn and Michael Mandelbaum, eds. ''Gorbachev's Russia and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/United-States-End-Cold-Reconsiderations/dp/0195085515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930854&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transition-American-Soviet-Relations-Cold/dp/0815730608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930894&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael ed. ''The End of the Cold War. Its Meaning and Implications'' (1992) articles from ''Diplomatic History'' online at JSTOR; [http://www.amazon.com/End-Cold-War-Meaning-Implications/dp/052143128X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930923&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kyvig, David ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-World-David-E-Kyvig/dp/0275935655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930956&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Autopsy of an Empire'' (1995) by US ambassador to Moscow
* Matlock, Jack F. "The End of the Cold War," ''Harvard International Review,'' Vol. 23, 2001 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000901782 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Pons, S., Romero, F., ''Reinterpreting the End of the Cold War: Issues, Interpretations, Periodizations'', (2005)
* Wallander, Celeste A. "Western Policy and the Demise of the Soviet Union," ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 5.4 (2003) 137-177 in [[Project Muse]]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807830984/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Intelligence==
* Aldrich, Richard J. ''The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence'' (2002).
* Ambrose, Stephen E. ''Ike's Spies: Eisenhower and the Intelligence Establishment'' (1981).
* Andrew, Christopher and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB'' (1999)
** Mitrokhin. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Mitrokhin Archive'' (1999). vol 1, on KGB
* Andrew, Christopher, and Oleg Gordievsky. ''KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev'' (1990).
* Bogle, Lori, ed. ''Cold War Espionage and Spying'' (2001), essays
* Dorril, Stephen. ''MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service'' (2000).
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: Project Muse and Ebsco
* Gates, Robert M. ''From The Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story Of Five Presidents And How They Won The Cold War'' (1997)
* Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. ''Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America'' (1999).
* Helms, Richard. ''A Look over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency'' (2003)
* Koehler, John O. ''Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police'' (1999)
* Murphy, David E., Sergei A. Kondrashev, and George Bailey. ''Battleground Berlin: CIA vs. KGB in the Cold War'' (1997).
* Prados, John. ''Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II'' (1996)
* Richelson, Jeffrey T. ''Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea.'' (2006). 702 pp.
* Rositzke, Harry. ''The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action'' (1988)
* Trahair, Richard C. S. ''Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies and Secret Operations'' (2004), by an Australian scholar; contains historiographical introduction [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106805285 online edition]
* Weinstein, Allen, and Alexander Vassiliev. ''The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era'' (1999).

==Economics and social Factors==
* Engerman, David C. "The Romance of Economic Development and New Histories of the Cold War.: ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 23-54. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: Ebsco
* Heiss, Mary Ann. "The Economic Cold War: America, Britain, and East-West Trade, 1948–63" ''The Historian'', Vol. 65, (2003)
* Hogan, Michael J. ''The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952'' (1989)
* Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye. ''Power and Interdependence'' (3rd Edition) (2000)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''Butter and Guns: America's Cold War Economic Diplomacy'' (1997)
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Morgan, Patrick M. and Keith L. Nelson (eds); ''Re-Viewing the Cold War: Domestic Factors and Foreign Policy in the East-West Confrontation'' (1997)

==Arms Race, nuclear strategies, weapons systems==
* Arnold, Lorna, with Pyne, Katherine. ''Britain and the H-Bomb.'' Palgrave, 2001. 273 pp.
* Atkins, Stephen E. ''Historical Encyclopedia of Atomic Energy.'' Greenwood, 2000. 491 pp.
* Ball, Desmond. ''Politics and Force Levels: The Strategic Missile Program of the Kennedy Administration'' (1980)
* Baylis, John. ''Ambiguity and Deterrence: British Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1964.'' Oxford U. Press, 1996. 495 pp.
* Betts, Richard K. ''Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance'' (Brookings Institution, 1987).
* Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin ''American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer'' (2006) Pulitzer Prize
* Bukharin, Oleg et al. ''Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.'' MIT Press, 2001. 693 pp.
* Bundy, McGeorge. ''Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years'' (1988).
* Craig, Campbell. ''Destroying the Village: Eisenhower and Thermonuclear War.'' Columbia University Press. 1998. 216pp.
* Carlisle, Rodney P., ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Atomic Age.'' Facts on File, 2001. 400 pp. numerous inaccuracies
* DeGroot, Gerard J. ''The Bomb: A Life'' (2006), focus on 1950s
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy'' (1983)
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ed. ''Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy Since 1945'' Oxford U. Press, 1999. 398 pp.
* Goldfischer, David. ''The Best Defense: Policy Alternatives for U.S. Nuclear Security from the 1950s to the 1990s.'' Cornell U. Press, 1993. 283 pp.
* Goodchild, Peter. ''Edward Teller: The Real Dr. Strangelove.'' Harvard U. Press, 2004. 469 pp
* Heuser, Beatrice. ''NATO, Britain, France and the FRG: Nuclear Strategies and Forces for Europe, 1949-2000.'' St. Martin's, 1997. 256 pp.
* Heuser, Beatrice. "The Development of Nato's Nuclear Strategy." ''Contemporary European History" 1995 4(1): 37-66. Issn: 0960-7773
* Hewlett, Richard, and Jack Holl. ''Atoms for Peace and War'' 3 vol; official history of Atomic Energy Commission (which built all the American bombs) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00537 1953-61 volume online]
* Holloway, David . ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1959–1956'' (1994)
* Jervis, Robert. ''The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon'' (Cornell University Press, 1989).
* Levine, Alan J. ''The Missile and Space Race.'' Praeger, 1994. 247 pp.
* Lebow, Richard Ned and Stein, Janice Gross. "Deterrence and the Cold War." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1995 110(2): 157-181. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: Jstor and Ebsco
* Mathers, Jennifer G. ''The Russian Nuclear Shield from Stalin to Yeltsin.'' St. Martin's, 2000. 227 pp.
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Miller, Jerry. ''Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers: How the Bomb Saved Naval Aviation.'' Smithsonian Inst. Press, 2001. 296 pp.
* Peden, G. C. ''Arms, Economics, and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs'' (2007); 398 pp.
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''Return to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1981-1999.'' Oxford U. Press, (2000). 294 pp.
* Preble, Christopher A. ''John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap.'' Northern Illinois U. Press, 2004. 244 pp.
* Rhodes, Richard. ''The Making of the Atomic Bomb,'' Pulitzer Prize
* Snead, David L. ''The Gaither Committee, Eisenhower, and the Cold War.'' Ohio State U. Press, 1999. 286 pp.
* Spinardi, Graham. ''From Polaris to Trident: The Development of U.S. Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1994. 253 pp.
* Stumpf, David K. ''Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program.'' U. of Arkansas Press, 2000. 320 pp.
* Terriff, Terry. ''The Nixon Administration and the Making of U.S. Nuclear Strategy.'' Cornell U. Press, 1995. 252 pp.
* Williamson, Samuel R., Jr. and Reardon, Steven L. ''The Origins of U.S. Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953.'' St. Martin's, 1993. 224 pp.

===Space Race===
* Cadbury, Deborah. ''Space Race: The Epic Battle between America and the Soviet Union for Dominion of Space'' (2006)
* Futrell, Robert Frank. ''Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic thinking in the United States Air Force: 1907-1960'' (1989)
* Logsdon, John M.. Robert William Smith, Roger D. Launius, ''Reconsidering Sputnik: Forty Years Since the Soviet Satellite'' (2000)
* McDougall, Walter A. ''The Heavens And the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age'' (ebooks 2001)
* Reeves, Robert. ''The Superpower Space Race: An Explosive Rivalry through the Solar System.'' 1994. 437 pp.

==Rhetoric, popular culture==
* Boyer, Paul S. ''By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age'' (1994)
* Carpenter, Charles A. ''Dramatists and the Bomb: American and British Playwrights Confront the Nuclear Age, 1945-1964.'' Greenwood, 1999. 183 pp.
* Gery, John. ''Nuclear Annihilation and Contemporary American Poetry: Ways of Nothingness.'' U. Press of Florida, 1996. 235 pp.
* Henriksen, Margot A. ''Dr. Strangelove's America: Society and Culture in the Atomic Age.'' U. of California Press, 1997. 451 pp.
* Kirby, Dianne ed. ''Religion and the Cold War'' (2003) 272 pp.
* Major, Patrick. "Future Perfect?: Communist Science Fiction in the Cold War." ''Cold War History'' 2003 4(1): 71-96. Issn: 1468-2745 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Marsh, Rosalind J. ''Soviet Fiction Since Stalin: science, politics and literature'' (1986)
* McConachie, Bruce. ''American Theatre and the Culture of the Cold War: Producing and Contesting Containment, 1947-1962.'' University of Iowa Press, 2003; 364pp
* Medhurst, Martin J. ''Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology'' Michigan State University Press, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11078688 online edition]
* Miller, D. Quentin. ''John Updike and the Cold War: Drawing the Iron Curtain'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106110847 online edition]
* Mitter, Patrick Major Rana. ''Across the Blocs. Exploring Comparative Cold War Cultural and Social History'' (2004) 150pp; [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22&filter=all&start=1&t=jNpLfQ3aF3p-fYWfbfSXHg&sq=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22 10% excerpt and text search]
* Mulvihill, Jason. "James Bond's Cold War Part I" ''Journal of Instructional Media'', Vol. 28, (2001)
* Parker, Stephen R., Rhys W. Williams, Colin Riordan. ''German Writers and the Cold War, 1945-61'' (1992) 250pp
* Resch, John P., et al. ''Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront'' (2005), vol 4: 1946 to Present
* Schwartz, Richard Alan. ''Cold War Culture: Media and the Arts, 1945–1990'' (2000)
* Seed, David. ''American Science Fiction and the Cold War'' (2002)
* Shapiro Jerome F. ''Atomic Bomb Cinema: The Apocalyptic Imagination on Film'' (2001)
* Stone, Albert E. ''Literary Aftershocks: American Writers, Readers, and the Bomb.'' (1994).
* Ventresca, Robert A. "The Virgin and the Bear: Religion, Society and the Cold War in Italy." ''Journal of Social History.'' Volume: 37#2 (2003) pp 439+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002442955 online edition]
* Whitfield, Stephen J. ''The Culture of the Cold War'' (1996)
* Winkler, Allan M. ''Life under a Cloud: American Anxiety about the Atom.'' (1993). 290 pp.
* Wittner, Lawrence S. ''The Struggle against the Bomb.'' 3 vol (1993-2003). antiwar movements in US and Europe
* Zeman, Scott C. "I Was a Cold War Monster: Horror Films, Eroticism and the Cold War Imagination," ''Journal of Popular Culture,'' August, 2004

==Primary sources: Documents and memoirs==
* Acheson, Dean . ''Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department'' (1992). [http://www.amazon.com/Present-Creation-Years-State-Department/dp/0393304124/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967222&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Baruch, Bernard . ''The Public Years'' (1960).
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Charles Bohlen . ''Witness to History, 1929-1969.'' 1973
* Eden, Anthony . ''The Memoirs of Anthony Eden, Earl of Avon. Vol. 2: The Reckoning.'' London: 1965.
* Eisenhower, Dwight D. [http://www.questia.com/read/16309287 ''The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956.'' (1963) online edition]; ''The White House Years: Waging Peace, 1957-1961.'' (1965).
* Etzold, Thomas and John Lewis Gaddis, eds., ''Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945–1950'' (1978)
* Chang, Laurence and Peter Kornbluh, eds., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1952'' (1985)
* Kennan George F. ''Memoirs, 1925-1950.'' (1957) [ excerpt and text search]
* Djilas, Milovan . ''Conversations with Stalin.'' 1962, Yugoslav diplomat [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Stalin-Milovan-Djilas/dp/0156225913/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967368&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimaki, Jussi M. and Odd Arne Westad, eds. ''The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts'' (2004)
* Khrushchev, Nikita. ''Khrushchev Remembers'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1991); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1987); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost Tapes'' ed. Jerrold Schechter (1989)
* Khrushchev, Sergei. ''Khrushchev on Khrushchev: An Inside Account of the Man and His Era,'' (1990)
* Kissinger, Henry, vol 1 ''White House Years'' (1979); vol 2 ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); vol 3 ''Years of Renewal 1974–1976'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/0684855720/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594084&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search vol 3]
* Nixon, Richard . ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594114&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)

==Historiography==
* Ferrell, Robert H. ''Harry S. Truman and the Cold War Revisionists.'' (2006). 142 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Truman-Cold-War-Revisionists/dp/0826216536/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594174&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila. "Russia's Twentieth Century in History and Historiography," ''The Australian Journal of Politics and History'', Vol. 46, 2000
*Gaddis, John Lewis, ''We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History'', (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/We-Now-Know-Rethinking-Relations/dp/0198780710/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594208&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22791452 online edition] * Gaddis, John Lewis. "The Emerging Post-Revisionist Synthesis on the Origins of the Cold War," ''Diplomatic History,'' Summer 1983: 171-190.
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy.'' (1982). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: [[Project Muse]]
* Kaplan, Lawrence S. ''American Historians and the Atlantic Alliance,'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14391678 online edition]
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack E. "The End of the Cold War" ''Harvard International Review'', Vol. 23 (2001)
* Olesen, Thorsten B. Ed. ''The Cold War and the Nordic Countries: Historiography at a Crossroads.'' Odense: U Southern Denmark Press, 2004. Pp. 194. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5010023306 online review]
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Trachtenberg, Marc. "The Marshall Plan as Tragedy." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2005 7(1): 135-140. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: in [[Project Muse]]
* Walker, J. Samuel. "Historians and Cold War Origins: The New Consensus", in Gerald K. Haines and J. Samuel Walker, eds., ''American Foreign Relations: A Historiographical Review'' (1981), 207–236.
* Westad, Arne Odd. "The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms," ''Diplomatic History,'' 2000, Vol. 24 in EBSCO
* Westad, Arne Odd, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) essays by scholars
* White, Timothy J. "Cold War Historiography: New Evidence Behind Traditional Typographies" ''International Social Science Review, (2000)
* William, William Appleman. ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy'' (1958) (1988 edition)
** Berger, Henry W. ed. ''A William Appleman Williams Reader'' (1992)
** ''Redefining the Past: Essays in Diplomatic History in Honor of William Appleman Williams''. Lloyd C. Gardner (ed.) (1986)
* Westad, Odd Arne, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Reviewing-Cold-War-Approaches-Interpretations/dp/0714681202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594380&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Xia, Yafeng. "The Study of Cold War International History in China: A Review of the Last Twenty Years," ''Journal of Cold War Studies''10#1 Winter 2008, pp. 81-115 in [[Project Muse]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/index2.htm Berlin 1969 - midpoint of the Cold War]

== See Also==
*[[Joseph McCarthy]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Berlin Wall]]

[[category:wars]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:Military History]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

Cold War

2009-04-17T16:49:19Z

ETrundel: rmv vandalism

Cold War

2009-04-17T16:48:54Z

ETrundel: rmv vandalism

The '''Cold War''' was political, economic and psychological conflict, together with regional hot wars, between the [[United States]],[[NATO]] and other allies, and the [[USSR]], [[China]] and their allies between 1947 and 1989. because we let in too many Illigal imigrants and disobeyed traditional family values

Although there was no direct fighting between the superpowers, each country was involved in a number of [[proxy conflict]]s, most notably in [[Vietnam]], [[Korea]] and [[Afghanistan]]. The most tense moment between the two main powers came in 1962 during the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], which ended without escalation into warfare.

The Cold War was marked by a nuclear [[arms race]] between the two super-powers, and the unchecked [[proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]] was a cause for concern in many quarters. The Cold War also was marked by high levels of [[espionage]].

The root of the Cold War lies in [[Soviet]] [[expansionism]] and [[subversion]] of so-called "[[bourgeois regime]]s".

The tension during the war fluctuated, with the super powers going through periods of heightened conflict and also periods of improved relations. It ended on November 11, 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet overseas empire. History closed the books on the Soviet Union itself on December 25, 1991. It was replaced by 15 smaller countries, especially [[Russia]], which all rejected Communism and the Cold War.
==Causes==
Following the Russian Revolution in the closing days of [[World War I]], President [[Woodrow Wilson]] refused to recognized the communist government of Russia and contributed troops in support of the White Russians. Not until 1933 did the US recognize the Soviet government, and relations did not truly warm until Hitler's invasion of Russia.

While the US and the UK cooperated with Russia throughout [[World War II]], tensions began to deteriorate soon after the end of the conflict, notably over the division of Germany and the occupation status of Europe. In 1946, George Kennan, a [[Department of State]] [[diplomat]] stationed in [[Moscow]], wrote the ''Long Telegram'', in which argued for the necessity of [[Containment|containing]] the Soviet Union. His cable resonated with President Harry Truman's
administration, and the 1947 invasion of North Korea seemed to confirm Kennan's views{{fact}}.

==Conflicts==

===Early Fronts===

November 18, 1945, General Secretary of the [[Communist Party USA]] [[William Z. Foster]] told delegates to the National Convention that "on the international scale the key task is to stop American intervention in China." On December 4, 1945, the Communists staged a "Get Out of China Rally," while communist dominated [[labor union]]s put on work stoppages with the same slogan. Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Owen Lattimore]] in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref> New York Compass, Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

[[Chiang Kai-shek]] was caught between two wars—a war on China by Japan and a war on China by the Soviet Union. American leaders refused to see this and insisted on acting in the illusion that China was fighting the Japanese only and that Soviet Union was an ally. Then came the startling realization that the United States, too, like China, were engaged in two wars in Asia, one against a common enemy, Japan; the other against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States, with its ally China, fought the Japanese. But all the time the Soviet Union, with its satellite Comintern army in China, was fighting both China and the United States. The [[iron curtain]] that, with the [[Yalta agreement]], was rung down over American allies in Europe—[[Poland]] and [[Czechoslovakia]] and other little countries—now fell on China.

===Major Cold War Fronts===
====In the Americas====
* [[Cuban Revolution]] / [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
* [[Nicaraguan Revolution]], [[Contras]]
* [[Salvadorian Civil War]]

====In Asia====
* [[Korean War]] (1950-53)
* [[Vietnam War]] (1965-75)
* [[Afghanistan War]], (1978-92)

==== In Africa====
* [[Angolan Civil War]]

====In Europe====
* [[Berlin Wall]]

===The Shootdown of Korean Airlines Flight 007===

Considered by many as the second or third most critical single incident of the Cold War, after the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962 and [[Able Archer 83]], the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] on Sept. 1, 1983 would signal a change in the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prompted by the subsequent deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in West Germany just 6 minutes from launch to Moscow. This precipitated the era of confrontation of 1983 and 1984 between the two nations. The world would once again witness what it saw as the blatent barbarity of what President Reagan had termed the "Evil Empire". Though the world had accepted that KAL 007 had exploded and crashed with no survivors of the 269 passengers and crew, there has most recently surfaced evidence to the contrary [http://www.rescue007.org/]. Democratic congressman from Georgia [[Larry McDonald]], a passenger aboard KAL 007, was the only member of Congress to have been reported killed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

==Breakup of the Soviet Union and American Victory==

The Western democracies, under the leadership of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Cold War. An important element of this victory was Reagan's decision to commit to increased military spending, such as the "[[Strategic Defense Initiative|Star Wars]]" program. Reagan's decisions to intervene in Afghanistan while pursuing an arms race exacerbated structural weaknesses in the Soviet economy and pushed the USSR into an early decline.

In 1985, [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] become General Secretary of the Communist Party.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/11/newsid_2538000/2538327.stm Gorbachev Becomes Soviet Leader], ''BBC'', 11 March, 1985.</ref> Recognizing the systemic problems faced by Soviet society, he attempted the twin reform programs of [[Glasnost]] (openness) and [[Perestroika]] (restructuring). Combined with the disaster at Chernobyl and losses in the war in Afghanistan, the effects of Gorbachev's reforms quickly spun out of control. Glasnost allowed media attention to focus on problems which had long been buried by the state's propaganda regime, causing widespread dissatisfaction among Soviet citizens. In 1989, a wave of constituent republics began to seek autonomy from the Soviet Union. Most attempts at succession (with the exception of Lithuania) were met with no Soviet resistance.

A failed coup attempting to halt the USSR's decline brought [[Boris Yeltsin]] to power. Yeltsin oversaw further economic reforms, though he was heavily criticized for his reliance on "shock therapy", which caused severe economic disruption to ordinary Russians while allowing oligarchs to gain control of state industries.
The '''[[Cold War]]''' is well documented by political scientists and historians. Following are selected major scholarly books and articles in English, and some major memoirs.

==Bibliography==
* Bacevich, Andrew J., ed. ''The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231131585/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00D#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Ball, S. J. ''The Cold War: An International History, 1947–1991'' (1998), British perspective; short summary; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-cold-war-an-international-history-1947-1991-by-s-j-ball.jsp online edition]
* Boyle Peter G. ''American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism.'' 1993.
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1989)
* Crockatt Richard. ''The Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991.'' 1995. [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-War-United-Politics/dp/0415135540/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967506&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Friedman, Norman. ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War''. (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-War-Conflict-Strategy-Cold/dp/1591142873/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967539&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ''The Cold War. A New History'', 2005. [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-New-History/dp/B000GUJH8A/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History'' 2nd ed. (1990)
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100560159 online edition]
* Kegley Jr., Charles W. ed., ''The Long Postwar Peace.'' 1991
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Cold-War/dp/0231107730/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967647&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1992'' 9th ed. (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Russia-Cold-1945-2002-Updated/dp/0072849037/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_1/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Mankind-United-States-Soviet/dp/0809097176/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567573&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lundestad, Geir. ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Politics since 1945'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/East-West-North-South-International/dp/1412907489/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193964045&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War.'' 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98945969&oplinknum=8 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Every-Front-Making-Unmaking-Cold/dp/0393030601/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967604&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78888203 online edition]
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Westad, Odd Arne ''The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/052170314X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]

==National perspectives==
===Soviet ===
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gorlizki, Yoram, and Oleg Khlevniuk. ''Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/read/105899376 online edition]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''Russia's Road to the Cold War: Diplomacy, Warfare, and the Politics of Communism, 1941–1945'' (1979)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Soviet-Insecurity-Stalin/dp/0195126599/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193676128&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/98422373 online complete edition]
* Nation, R. Craig. ''Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991'' (1992)
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004), Pulitzer Prize; [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567469&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917–1973'', 2nd ed. (1974)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)

===American===
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Containment-Critical-Appraisal-American/dp/019517447X/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael J. ''America in the World: The Historiography of US Foreign Relations since 1941'' (1996), scholarly articles reprinted from the journal ''Diplomatic History'' [http://www.amazon.com/America-World-Historiography-Foreign-Relations/dp/0521498074/ref=sr_1_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007)
* Lewis, Adrian R. ''The American Culture of War: The History of U.S. Military Force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/American-Culture-War-Military-Operation/dp/0415979757/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan'' (1988)

===British ===
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Clarke, Bob. ''Four Minute Warning: Britain's Cold War '' (2005)
* Deighton Anne. "The 'Frozen Front': The Labour Government, the Division of Germany and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1947," ''International Affairs'' 65, 1987: 449-465.
* Young, John W. ''Winston Churchill's Last Campaign: Britain and the Cold War, 1951-5'' Clarendon Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9663209 online edition]

===China===
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Roberts, Priscilla. ''Behind the Bamboo Curtain: China, Vietnam, and the Cold War'' (2006)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Zhai, Qiang. ''China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/China-Vietnam-Wars-1950-1975-History/dp/0807848425/ref=sr_1_34/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675671&sr=1-34 excerpt and text search]

===Europe===
* Allen, Debra J. ''The Oder-Neisse Line: The United States, Poland, and Germany in the Cold War'' (2003) 309 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Oder-Neisse-Line-Germany-Contributions-History/dp/0313323593/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967768&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Borhi, László. ''Hungary in the Cold War, 1945-1956'' (2004) 352 pages
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Crace, Sylvia E. and John O. Crane. ''Czechoslovakia: Anvil of the Cold War,'' 1991
* Judt, Tony. ''Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945'', (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/B000GUJHIA/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_2/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Naimark, Norman, and Leonid Gibianskii. ''Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944-1949'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Establishment-Communist-Regimes-Eastern-1944-1949/dp/0813335345/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967826&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ninkovich, Frank. ''Germany and the United States: The Transformation of the German Question since 1945'' (1988)
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Turner, Henry Ashby. ''Germany from Partition to Reunification'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Germany-Partition-Reunification-Revised-Germanies/dp/0300053479/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967898&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Origins: to 1950==
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Beisner, Robert L. ''Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Dean-Acheson-Life-Cold-War/dp/0195045785/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Chen, Jian, ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Clemens, Diane Shaver. ''Yalta.'' 1970.
* Cumings, Bruce ''The Origins of the Korean War'' (2 vols., 1981–90), friendly to North Korea and hostile to US
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=89825298 online edition] [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00094 online at ACLS e-books]
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Xue Litai , ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993)
* Isaacson Walter, and Even Thomas. ''The Wise Men. Six Friends and the World They Made. Acheson, Bohlen, Harriman, Kennan, Lovett, McCloy.'' 1986.
* Leffler, Melvyn. ''A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration and the Cold War'' (1992). [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00097 online at ACLS e-books]
* Levering, Ralph, Vladamir Pechatnov, Verena Botzenhart-Viehe, and C. Earl Edmondson. ''Debating the Origins of the Cold War'' (2001)
* Yonosuke Nagai and Akira Iriye, eds., ''The Origins of the Cold War in Asia.'' 1977
* Trachtenberg, Marc. ''A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963'' (1999)
* Whitcomb, Roger S. ''The Cold War in Retrospect: The Formative Years'' Praeger Publishers, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26243570 online edition]

==1950s and 1960s==
* Beschloss, Michael. ''Kennedy v. Khrushchev: The Crisis Years, 1960–63'' (1991)
* Beschloss Michael. ''Mayday: Eisenhower, Kennedy and the U-2 Affair'' 1986.
* Brands, H. W. ''Cold Warriors. Eisenhower's Generation and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Brands, H. W. ''The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power '' (1997)
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict'', New York: Praeger (1961)
* Divine, Robert A. ''Eisenhower and the Cold War'' (1981)
* Divine, Robert A. ed., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis'' 2nd ed. (1988)
* Duiker William J. ''U.S. Containment Policy and the Conflict in Indochina.'' 1994.
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Fursenko, Aleksandr and Timothy Naftali. ''One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958–1964'' (1997)
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''The Diplomacy of the Crucial Decade: American Foreign Relations during the 1960s'' (1994)
* Navratil, Jaromir. ''The Prague Spring 68´'' (1998)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998)
* Melanson, Richard A. and David Mayers, eds., ''Reevaluating Eisenhower. American Foreign Policy in the 1950s'' (1986)
* Paterson, Thomas G. ed., ''Kennedy's Quest for Victory: American Foreign Policy, 1961–1963'' (1989).
* Reynolds, David, ed. ''The Origins of the Cold War in Europe: International Perspectives'' (1994)
* Williams, Kirrian. ''The Prague Spring and its Aftermath : Czechoslovak Politics, 1968–1970'' (1997)
===Korean War===
* Brune, Lester H. ed. ''The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/14647120 online edition]
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/100020811 online edition]
* Stueck, Jr. William W. ''The Korean War: An International History'' (1995)
* Stueck, Jr. William. ''Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/99794818 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Korean War'' (2002)

==Vietnam==
* Anderson, David L. ''Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War'' (2004).
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate'' (1991). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102078651 online edition]
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Herring, George C''. America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975'' (4th ed 2001), most widely used short history.
* Kahin, George McTurnan. ''Intervention: how America became involved in Vietnam'' (1986) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.02216 online at ACLS e-books]
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam: A History'' (1983), popular history by journalist; strong on Saigon's plans.
* Kutler, Stanley ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1996). essays by experts
* Lewy, Guenter. ''America in Vietnam'' (1978), defends U.S. actions.
* McMahon, Robert J. ''Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War: Documents and Essays'' (1995) textbook.
* Schulzinger, Robert D. ''Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975.'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59258841&oplinknum=2 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1998) 3 vol. reference set; also one-volume abridgement (2001).
* Tucker, Spencer. ''Vietnam.'' (1999) 226pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103499126# online edition]
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997)
* ''The Pentagon Papers'' (Gravel ed. 5 vol 1971); combination of narrative and secret documents compiled by Pentagon. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html excerpts]

==Détente: 1969–1979==
* Ash, Timothy Garton. ''In Europe's Name: Germany and the Divided Continent'' (1993)
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan'' 2nd ed (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29069917 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Detente-Confrontation-American-Soviet-Relations-Reagan/dp/0815730411/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578168&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimäki, Jussi. ''The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy,'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108656972 online edition]
* Isaacson, Walter. ''Kissinger'' (1992); [http://www.amazon.com/Kissinger-Biography-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743286979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577598&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Litwak, Robert S. ''Détente and the Nixon Doctrine: American Foreign Policy and the Pursuit of Stability, 1969-1976'' (1986)
* Nelson, Keith L. ''The Making of Détente: Soviet-American Relations in the Shadow of Vietnam'' (1995)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Henry Kissinger and the American Century'' (2007)
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente.'' (2003), focus on student revolts of 1968 [http://www.amazon.com/Power-Protest-Global-Revolution-Detente/dp/0674017633/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578729&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Dangerous Relations. The Soviet Union in World Politics, 1970–1982'' (1983)
===Primary sources and memoirs===
* Arbatov, Georgi. ''The System: An Insider's Life in Soviet Politics'' (1993)
* Kissinger, Henry. ''White House Years'' (1979); ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); ''Years of Renewal'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/075675383X/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Nixon, Richard. ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577855&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Second Cold War: 1979–1986==
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Mower, A. Glenn Jr. ''Human Rights and American Foreign Policy: The Carter and Reagan Experiences'' ( 1987),
* Smith, Gaddis. ''Morality, Reason and Power:American Diplomacy in the Carter Years'' (1986).
* Westad, O. A., ''The Fall of Detente: Soviet-American Relations During the Carter Years'' (1997)

==End of Cold War: 1986–1991==
* Beschloss, Michael, and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels:The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War'' (1993)
* Bialer, Seweryn and Michael Mandelbaum, eds. ''Gorbachev's Russia and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/United-States-End-Cold-Reconsiderations/dp/0195085515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930854&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transition-American-Soviet-Relations-Cold/dp/0815730608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930894&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael ed. ''The End of the Cold War. Its Meaning and Implications'' (1992) articles from ''Diplomatic History'' online at JSTOR; [http://www.amazon.com/End-Cold-War-Meaning-Implications/dp/052143128X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930923&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kyvig, David ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-World-David-E-Kyvig/dp/0275935655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930956&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Autopsy of an Empire'' (1995) by US ambassador to Moscow
* Matlock, Jack F. "The End of the Cold War," ''Harvard International Review,'' Vol. 23, 2001 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000901782 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Pons, S., Romero, F., ''Reinterpreting the End of the Cold War: Issues, Interpretations, Periodizations'', (2005)
* Wallander, Celeste A. "Western Policy and the Demise of the Soviet Union," ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 5.4 (2003) 137-177 in [[Project Muse]]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807830984/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Intelligence==
* Aldrich, Richard J. ''The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence'' (2002).
* Ambrose, Stephen E. ''Ike's Spies: Eisenhower and the Intelligence Establishment'' (1981).
* Andrew, Christopher and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB'' (1999)
** Mitrokhin. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Mitrokhin Archive'' (1999). vol 1, on KGB
* Andrew, Christopher, and Oleg Gordievsky. ''KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev'' (1990).
* Bogle, Lori, ed. ''Cold War Espionage and Spying'' (2001), essays
* Dorril, Stephen. ''MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service'' (2000).
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: Project Muse and Ebsco
* Gates, Robert M. ''From The Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story Of Five Presidents And How They Won The Cold War'' (1997)
* Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. ''Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America'' (1999).
* Helms, Richard. ''A Look over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency'' (2003)
* Koehler, John O. ''Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police'' (1999)
* Murphy, David E., Sergei A. Kondrashev, and George Bailey. ''Battleground Berlin: CIA vs. KGB in the Cold War'' (1997).
* Prados, John. ''Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II'' (1996)
* Richelson, Jeffrey T. ''Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea.'' (2006). 702 pp.
* Rositzke, Harry. ''The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action'' (1988)
* Trahair, Richard C. S. ''Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies and Secret Operations'' (2004), by an Australian scholar; contains historiographical introduction [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106805285 online edition]
* Weinstein, Allen, and Alexander Vassiliev. ''The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era'' (1999).

==Economics and social Factors==
* Engerman, David C. "The Romance of Economic Development and New Histories of the Cold War.: ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 23-54. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: Ebsco
* Heiss, Mary Ann. "The Economic Cold War: America, Britain, and East-West Trade, 1948–63" ''The Historian'', Vol. 65, (2003)
* Hogan, Michael J. ''The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952'' (1989)
* Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye. ''Power and Interdependence'' (3rd Edition) (2000)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''Butter and Guns: America's Cold War Economic Diplomacy'' (1997)
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Morgan, Patrick M. and Keith L. Nelson (eds); ''Re-Viewing the Cold War: Domestic Factors and Foreign Policy in the East-West Confrontation'' (1997)

==Arms Race, nuclear strategies, weapons systems==
* Arnold, Lorna, with Pyne, Katherine. ''Britain and the H-Bomb.'' Palgrave, 2001. 273 pp.
* Atkins, Stephen E. ''Historical Encyclopedia of Atomic Energy.'' Greenwood, 2000. 491 pp.
* Ball, Desmond. ''Politics and Force Levels: The Strategic Missile Program of the Kennedy Administration'' (1980)
* Baylis, John. ''Ambiguity and Deterrence: British Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1964.'' Oxford U. Press, 1996. 495 pp.
* Betts, Richard K. ''Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance'' (Brookings Institution, 1987).
* Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin ''American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer'' (2006) Pulitzer Prize
* Bukharin, Oleg et al. ''Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.'' MIT Press, 2001. 693 pp.
* Bundy, McGeorge. ''Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years'' (1988).
* Craig, Campbell. ''Destroying the Village: Eisenhower and Thermonuclear War.'' Columbia University Press. 1998. 216pp.
* Carlisle, Rodney P., ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Atomic Age.'' Facts on File, 2001. 400 pp. numerous inaccuracies
* DeGroot, Gerard J. ''The Bomb: A Life'' (2006), focus on 1950s
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy'' (1983)
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ed. ''Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy Since 1945'' Oxford U. Press, 1999. 398 pp.
* Goldfischer, David. ''The Best Defense: Policy Alternatives for U.S. Nuclear Security from the 1950s to the 1990s.'' Cornell U. Press, 1993. 283 pp.
* Goodchild, Peter. ''Edward Teller: The Real Dr. Strangelove.'' Harvard U. Press, 2004. 469 pp
* Heuser, Beatrice. ''NATO, Britain, France and the FRG: Nuclear Strategies and Forces for Europe, 1949-2000.'' St. Martin's, 1997. 256 pp.
* Heuser, Beatrice. "The Development of Nato's Nuclear Strategy." ''Contemporary European History" 1995 4(1): 37-66. Issn: 0960-7773
* Hewlett, Richard, and Jack Holl. ''Atoms for Peace and War'' 3 vol; official history of Atomic Energy Commission (which built all the American bombs) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00537 1953-61 volume online]
* Holloway, David . ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1959–1956'' (1994)
* Jervis, Robert. ''The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon'' (Cornell University Press, 1989).
* Levine, Alan J. ''The Missile and Space Race.'' Praeger, 1994. 247 pp.
* Lebow, Richard Ned and Stein, Janice Gross. "Deterrence and the Cold War." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1995 110(2): 157-181. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: Jstor and Ebsco
* Mathers, Jennifer G. ''The Russian Nuclear Shield from Stalin to Yeltsin.'' St. Martin's, 2000. 227 pp.
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Miller, Jerry. ''Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers: How the Bomb Saved Naval Aviation.'' Smithsonian Inst. Press, 2001. 296 pp.
* Peden, G. C. ''Arms, Economics, and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs'' (2007); 398 pp.
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''Return to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1981-1999.'' Oxford U. Press, (2000). 294 pp.
* Preble, Christopher A. ''John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap.'' Northern Illinois U. Press, 2004. 244 pp.
* Rhodes, Richard. ''The Making of the Atomic Bomb,'' Pulitzer Prize
* Snead, David L. ''The Gaither Committee, Eisenhower, and the Cold War.'' Ohio State U. Press, 1999. 286 pp.
* Spinardi, Graham. ''From Polaris to Trident: The Development of U.S. Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1994. 253 pp.
* Stumpf, David K. ''Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program.'' U. of Arkansas Press, 2000. 320 pp.
* Terriff, Terry. ''The Nixon Administration and the Making of U.S. Nuclear Strategy.'' Cornell U. Press, 1995. 252 pp.
* Williamson, Samuel R., Jr. and Reardon, Steven L. ''The Origins of U.S. Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953.'' St. Martin's, 1993. 224 pp.

===Space Race===
* Cadbury, Deborah. ''Space Race: The Epic Battle between America and the Soviet Union for Dominion of Space'' (2006)
* Futrell, Robert Frank. ''Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic thinking in the United States Air Force: 1907-1960'' (1989)
* Logsdon, John M.. Robert William Smith, Roger D. Launius, ''Reconsidering Sputnik: Forty Years Since the Soviet Satellite'' (2000)
* McDougall, Walter A. ''The Heavens And the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age'' (ebooks 2001)
* Reeves, Robert. ''The Superpower Space Race: An Explosive Rivalry through the Solar System.'' 1994. 437 pp.

==Rhetoric, popular culture==
* Boyer, Paul S. ''By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age'' (1994)
* Carpenter, Charles A. ''Dramatists and the Bomb: American and British Playwrights Confront the Nuclear Age, 1945-1964.'' Greenwood, 1999. 183 pp.
* Gery, John. ''Nuclear Annihilation and Contemporary American Poetry: Ways of Nothingness.'' U. Press of Florida, 1996. 235 pp.
* Henriksen, Margot A. ''Dr. Strangelove's America: Society and Culture in the Atomic Age.'' U. of California Press, 1997. 451 pp.
* Kirby, Dianne ed. ''Religion and the Cold War'' (2003) 272 pp.
* Major, Patrick. "Future Perfect?: Communist Science Fiction in the Cold War." ''Cold War History'' 2003 4(1): 71-96. Issn: 1468-2745 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Marsh, Rosalind J. ''Soviet Fiction Since Stalin: science, politics and literature'' (1986)
* McConachie, Bruce. ''American Theatre and the Culture of the Cold War: Producing and Contesting Containment, 1947-1962.'' University of Iowa Press, 2003; 364pp
* Medhurst, Martin J. ''Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology'' Michigan State University Press, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11078688 online edition]
* Miller, D. Quentin. ''John Updike and the Cold War: Drawing the Iron Curtain'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106110847 online edition]
* Mitter, Patrick Major Rana. ''Across the Blocs. Exploring Comparative Cold War Cultural and Social History'' (2004) 150pp; [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22&filter=all&start=1&t=jNpLfQ3aF3p-fYWfbfSXHg&sq=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22 10% excerpt and text search]
* Mulvihill, Jason. "James Bond's Cold War Part I" ''Journal of Instructional Media'', Vol. 28, (2001)
* Parker, Stephen R., Rhys W. Williams, Colin Riordan. ''German Writers and the Cold War, 1945-61'' (1992) 250pp
* Resch, John P., et al. ''Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront'' (2005), vol 4: 1946 to Present
* Schwartz, Richard Alan. ''Cold War Culture: Media and the Arts, 1945–1990'' (2000)
* Seed, David. ''American Science Fiction and the Cold War'' (2002)
* Shapiro Jerome F. ''Atomic Bomb Cinema: The Apocalyptic Imagination on Film'' (2001)
* Stone, Albert E. ''Literary Aftershocks: American Writers, Readers, and the Bomb.'' (1994).
* Ventresca, Robert A. "The Virgin and the Bear: Religion, Society and the Cold War in Italy." ''Journal of Social History.'' Volume: 37#2 (2003) pp 439+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002442955 online edition]
* Whitfield, Stephen J. ''The Culture of the Cold War'' (1996)
* Winkler, Allan M. ''Life under a Cloud: American Anxiety about the Atom.'' (1993). 290 pp.
* Wittner, Lawrence S. ''The Struggle against the Bomb.'' 3 vol (1993-2003). antiwar movements in US and Europe
* Zeman, Scott C. "I Was a Cold War Monster: Horror Films, Eroticism and the Cold War Imagination," ''Journal of Popular Culture,'' August, 2004

==Primary sources: Documents and memoirs==
* Acheson, Dean . ''Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department'' (1992). [http://www.amazon.com/Present-Creation-Years-State-Department/dp/0393304124/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967222&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Baruch, Bernard . ''The Public Years'' (1960).
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Charles Bohlen . ''Witness to History, 1929-1969.'' 1973
* Eden, Anthony . ''The Memoirs of Anthony Eden, Earl of Avon. Vol. 2: The Reckoning.'' London: 1965.
* Eisenhower, Dwight D. [http://www.questia.com/read/16309287 ''The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956.'' (1963) online edition]; ''The White House Years: Waging Peace, 1957-1961.'' (1965).
* Etzold, Thomas and John Lewis Gaddis, eds., ''Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945–1950'' (1978)
* Chang, Laurence and Peter Kornbluh, eds., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1952'' (1985)
* Kennan George F. ''Memoirs, 1925-1950.'' (1957) [ excerpt and text search]
* Djilas, Milovan . ''Conversations with Stalin.'' 1962, Yugoslav diplomat [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Stalin-Milovan-Djilas/dp/0156225913/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967368&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimaki, Jussi M. and Odd Arne Westad, eds. ''The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts'' (2004)
* Khrushchev, Nikita. ''Khrushchev Remembers'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1991); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1987); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost Tapes'' ed. Jerrold Schechter (1989)
* Khrushchev, Sergei. ''Khrushchev on Khrushchev: An Inside Account of the Man and His Era,'' (1990)
* Kissinger, Henry, vol 1 ''White House Years'' (1979); vol 2 ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); vol 3 ''Years of Renewal 1974–1976'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/0684855720/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594084&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search vol 3]
* Nixon, Richard . ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594114&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)

==Historiography==
* Ferrell, Robert H. ''Harry S. Truman and the Cold War Revisionists.'' (2006). 142 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Truman-Cold-War-Revisionists/dp/0826216536/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594174&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila. "Russia's Twentieth Century in History and Historiography," ''The Australian Journal of Politics and History'', Vol. 46, 2000
*Gaddis, John Lewis, ''We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History'', (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/We-Now-Know-Rethinking-Relations/dp/0198780710/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594208&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22791452 online edition] * Gaddis, John Lewis. "The Emerging Post-Revisionist Synthesis on the Origins of the Cold War," ''Diplomatic History,'' Summer 1983: 171-190.
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy.'' (1982). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: [[Project Muse]]
* Kaplan, Lawrence S. ''American Historians and the Atlantic Alliance,'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14391678 online edition]
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack E. "The End of the Cold War" ''Harvard International Review'', Vol. 23 (2001)
* Olesen, Thorsten B. Ed. ''The Cold War and the Nordic Countries: Historiography at a Crossroads.'' Odense: U Southern Denmark Press, 2004. Pp. 194. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5010023306 online review]
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Trachtenberg, Marc. "The Marshall Plan as Tragedy." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2005 7(1): 135-140. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: in [[Project Muse]]
* Walker, J. Samuel. "Historians and Cold War Origins: The New Consensus", in Gerald K. Haines and J. Samuel Walker, eds., ''American Foreign Relations: A Historiographical Review'' (1981), 207–236.
* Westad, Arne Odd. "The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms," ''Diplomatic History,'' 2000, Vol. 24 in EBSCO
* Westad, Arne Odd, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) essays by scholars
* White, Timothy J. "Cold War Historiography: New Evidence Behind Traditional Typographies" ''International Social Science Review, (2000)
* William, William Appleman. ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy'' (1958) (1988 edition)
** Berger, Henry W. ed. ''A William Appleman Williams Reader'' (1992)
** ''Redefining the Past: Essays in Diplomatic History in Honor of William Appleman Williams''. Lloyd C. Gardner (ed.) (1986)
* Westad, Odd Arne, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Reviewing-Cold-War-Approaches-Interpretations/dp/0714681202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594380&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Xia, Yafeng. "The Study of Cold War International History in China: A Review of the Last Twenty Years," ''Journal of Cold War Studies''10#1 Winter 2008, pp. 81-115 in [[Project Muse]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/index2.htm Berlin 1969 - midpoint of the Cold War]

== See Also==
*[[Joseph McCarthy]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Berlin Wall]]

[[category:wars]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:Military History]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

Cold War

2009-04-17T16:48:23Z

ETrundel: rmv vandalism

The '''Cold War''' was political, economic and psychological conflict, together with regional hot wars, between the [[United States]],[[NATO]] and other allies, and the [[USSR]], [[China]] and their allies between 1947 and 1989. because we let in too many Illigal imigrants and disobeyed traditional family values. Thanks to former President Tom Worthington the col war was a Delicous cat for the world and made nick think of grant sleeping.

Although there was no direct fighting between the superpowers, each country was involved in a number of [[proxy conflict]]s, most notably in [[Vietnam]], [[Korea]] and [[Afghanistan]]. The most tense moment between the two main powers came in 1962 during the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], which ended without escalation into warfare.

The Cold War was marked by a nuclear [[arms race]] between the two super-powers, and the unchecked [[proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]] was a cause for concern in many quarters. The Cold War also was marked by high levels of [[espionage]].

The root of the Cold War lies in [[Soviet]] [[expansionism]] and [[subversion]] of so-called "[[bourgeois regime]]s".

The tension during the war fluctuated, with the super powers going through periods of heightened conflict and also periods of improved relations. It ended on November 11, 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet overseas empire. History closed the books on the Soviet Union itself on December 25, 1991. It was replaced by 15 smaller countries, especially [[Russia]], which all rejected Communism and the Cold War.
==Causes==
Following the Russian Revolution in the closing days of [[World War I]], President [[Woodrow Wilson]] refused to recognized the communist government of Russia and contributed troops in support of the White Russians. Not until 1933 did the US recognize the Soviet government, and relations did not truly warm until Hitler's invasion of Russia.

While the US and the UK cooperated with Russia throughout [[World War II]], tensions began to deteriorate soon after the end of the conflict, notably over the division of Germany and the occupation status of Europe. In 1946, George Kennan, a [[Department of State]] [[diplomat]] stationed in [[Moscow]], wrote the ''Long Telegram'', in which argued for the necessity of [[Containment|containing]] the Soviet Union. His cable resonated with President Harry Truman's
administration, and the 1947 invasion of North Korea seemed to confirm Kennan's views{{fact}}.

==Conflicts==

===Early Fronts===

November 18, 1945, General Secretary of the [[Communist Party USA]] [[William Z. Foster]] told delegates to the National Convention that "on the international scale the key task is to stop American intervention in China." On December 4, 1945, the Communists staged a "Get Out of China Rally," while communist dominated [[labor union]]s put on work stoppages with the same slogan. Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Owen Lattimore]] in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref> New York Compass, Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

[[Chiang Kai-shek]] was caught between two wars—a war on China by Japan and a war on China by the Soviet Union. American leaders refused to see this and insisted on acting in the illusion that China was fighting the Japanese only and that Soviet Union was an ally. Then came the startling realization that the United States, too, like China, were engaged in two wars in Asia, one against a common enemy, Japan; the other against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States, with its ally China, fought the Japanese. But all the time the Soviet Union, with its satellite Comintern army in China, was fighting both China and the United States. The [[iron curtain]] that, with the [[Yalta agreement]], was rung down over American allies in Europe—[[Poland]] and [[Czechoslovakia]] and other little countries—now fell on China.

===Major Cold War Fronts===
====In the Americas====
* [[Cuban Revolution]] / [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
* [[Nicaraguan Revolution]], [[Contras]]
* [[Salvadorian Civil War]]

====In Asia====
* [[Korean War]] (1950-53)
* [[Vietnam War]] (1965-75)
* [[Afghanistan War]], (1978-92)

==== In Africa====
* [[Angolan Civil War]]

====In Europe====
* [[Berlin Wall]]

===The Shootdown of Korean Airlines Flight 007===

Considered by many as the second or third most critical single incident of the Cold War, after the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962 and [[Able Archer 83]], the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] on Sept. 1, 1983 would signal a change in the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prompted by the subsequent deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in West Germany just 6 minutes from launch to Moscow. This precipitated the era of confrontation of 1983 and 1984 between the two nations. The world would once again witness what it saw as the blatent barbarity of what President Reagan had termed the "Evil Empire". Though the world had accepted that KAL 007 had exploded and crashed with no survivors of the 269 passengers and crew, there has most recently surfaced evidence to the contrary [http://www.rescue007.org/]. Democratic congressman from Georgia [[Larry McDonald]], a passenger aboard KAL 007, was the only member of Congress to have been reported killed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

==Breakup of the Soviet Union and American Victory==

The Western democracies, under the leadership of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Cold War. An important element of this victory was Reagan's decision to commit to increased military spending, such as the "[[Strategic Defense Initiative|Star Wars]]" program. Reagan's decisions to intervene in Afghanistan while pursuing an arms race exacerbated structural weaknesses in the Soviet economy and pushed the USSR into an early decline.

In 1985, [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] become General Secretary of the Communist Party.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/11/newsid_2538000/2538327.stm Gorbachev Becomes Soviet Leader], ''BBC'', 11 March, 1985.</ref> Recognizing the systemic problems faced by Soviet society, he attempted the twin reform programs of [[Glasnost]] (openness) and [[Perestroika]] (restructuring). Combined with the disaster at Chernobyl and losses in the war in Afghanistan, the effects of Gorbachev's reforms quickly spun out of control. Glasnost allowed media attention to focus on problems which had long been buried by the state's propaganda regime, causing widespread dissatisfaction among Soviet citizens. In 1989, a wave of constituent republics began to seek autonomy from the Soviet Union. Most attempts at succession (with the exception of Lithuania) were met with no Soviet resistance.

A failed coup attempting to halt the USSR's decline brought [[Boris Yeltsin]] to power. Yeltsin oversaw further economic reforms, though he was heavily criticized for his reliance on "shock therapy", which caused severe economic disruption to ordinary Russians while allowing oligarchs to gain control of state industries.
The '''[[Cold War]]''' is well documented by political scientists and historians. Following are selected major scholarly books and articles in English, and some major memoirs.

==Bibliography==
* Bacevich, Andrew J., ed. ''The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231131585/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00D#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Ball, S. J. ''The Cold War: An International History, 1947–1991'' (1998), British perspective; short summary; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-cold-war-an-international-history-1947-1991-by-s-j-ball.jsp online edition]
* Boyle Peter G. ''American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism.'' 1993.
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1989)
* Crockatt Richard. ''The Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991.'' 1995. [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-War-United-Politics/dp/0415135540/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967506&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Friedman, Norman. ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War''. (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-War-Conflict-Strategy-Cold/dp/1591142873/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967539&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ''The Cold War. A New History'', 2005. [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-New-History/dp/B000GUJH8A/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History'' 2nd ed. (1990)
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100560159 online edition]
* Kegley Jr., Charles W. ed., ''The Long Postwar Peace.'' 1991
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Cold-War/dp/0231107730/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967647&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1992'' 9th ed. (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Russia-Cold-1945-2002-Updated/dp/0072849037/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_1/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Mankind-United-States-Soviet/dp/0809097176/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567573&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lundestad, Geir. ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Politics since 1945'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/East-West-North-South-International/dp/1412907489/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193964045&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War.'' 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98945969&oplinknum=8 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Every-Front-Making-Unmaking-Cold/dp/0393030601/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967604&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78888203 online edition]
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Westad, Odd Arne ''The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/052170314X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]

==National perspectives==
===Soviet ===
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gorlizki, Yoram, and Oleg Khlevniuk. ''Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/read/105899376 online edition]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''Russia's Road to the Cold War: Diplomacy, Warfare, and the Politics of Communism, 1941–1945'' (1979)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Soviet-Insecurity-Stalin/dp/0195126599/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193676128&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/98422373 online complete edition]
* Nation, R. Craig. ''Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991'' (1992)
* Sivachev, Nikolai and Nikolai Yakolev, ''Russia and the United States'' (1979), by Soviet historians
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004), Pulitzer Prize; [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567469&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917–1973'', 2nd ed. (1974)
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War'' (1996) [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=zubok&filter=all&start=1 20% excerpt and online search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007)

===American===
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Containment-Critical-Appraisal-American/dp/019517447X/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael J. ''America in the World: The Historiography of US Foreign Relations since 1941'' (1996), scholarly articles reprinted from the journal ''Diplomatic History'' [http://www.amazon.com/America-World-Historiography-Foreign-Relations/dp/0521498074/ref=sr_1_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007)
* Lewis, Adrian R. ''The American Culture of War: The History of U.S. Military Force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/American-Culture-War-Military-Operation/dp/0415979757/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan'' (1988)

===British ===
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Clarke, Bob. ''Four Minute Warning: Britain's Cold War '' (2005)
* Deighton Anne. "The 'Frozen Front': The Labour Government, the Division of Germany and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1947," ''International Affairs'' 65, 1987: 449-465.
* Young, John W. ''Winston Churchill's Last Campaign: Britain and the Cold War, 1951-5'' Clarendon Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9663209 online edition]

===China===
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Litai Xue, ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Partners-Studies-Security-Control/dp/0804725217/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675770&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Roberts, Priscilla. ''Behind the Bamboo Curtain: China, Vietnam, and the Cold War'' (2006)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Zhai, Qiang. ''China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/China-Vietnam-Wars-1950-1975-History/dp/0807848425/ref=sr_1_34/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193675671&sr=1-34 excerpt and text search]

===Europe===
* Allen, Debra J. ''The Oder-Neisse Line: The United States, Poland, and Germany in the Cold War'' (2003) 309 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Oder-Neisse-Line-Germany-Contributions-History/dp/0313323593/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967768&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Borhi, László. ''Hungary in the Cold War, 1945-1956'' (2004) 352 pages
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Crace, Sylvia E. and John O. Crane. ''Czechoslovakia: Anvil of the Cold War,'' 1991
* Judt, Tony. ''Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945'', (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/B000GUJHIA/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_2/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Naimark, Norman, and Leonid Gibianskii. ''Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944-1949'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Establishment-Communist-Regimes-Eastern-1944-1949/dp/0813335345/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967826&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ninkovich, Frank. ''Germany and the United States: The Transformation of the German Question since 1945'' (1988)
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Turner, Henry Ashby. ''Germany from Partition to Reunification'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Germany-Partition-Reunification-Revised-Germanies/dp/0300053479/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967898&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Origins: to 1950==
* Anderson Terry H. ''The United States, Great Britain, and the Cold War, 1944-1947.'' (1981)
* Beisner, Robert L. ''Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Dean-Acheson-Life-Cold-War/dp/0195045785/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Bullock, Alan. ''Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary, 1945-1951.'' 1983, on British policy
* Chen, Jian, ''China's Road to the Korean War: Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (2004)
* Clemens, Diane Shaver. ''Yalta.'' 1970.
* Cumings, Bruce ''The Origins of the Korean War'' (2 vols., 1981–90), friendly to North Korea and hostile to US
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=89825298 online edition] [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00094 online at ACLS e-books]
* Goncharov, Sergei, John Lewis and Xue Litai , ''Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War'' (1993)
* Isaacson Walter, and Even Thomas. ''The Wise Men. Six Friends and the World They Made. Acheson, Bohlen, Harriman, Kennan, Lovett, McCloy.'' 1986.
* Leffler, Melvyn. ''A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration and the Cold War'' (1992). [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00097 online at ACLS e-books]
* Levering, Ralph, Vladamir Pechatnov, Verena Botzenhart-Viehe, and C. Earl Edmondson. ''Debating the Origins of the Cold War'' (2001)
* Yonosuke Nagai and Akira Iriye, eds., ''The Origins of the Cold War in Asia.'' 1977
* Trachtenberg, Marc. ''A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963'' (1999)
* Whitcomb, Roger S. ''The Cold War in Retrospect: The Formative Years'' Praeger Publishers, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26243570 online edition]

==1950s and 1960s==
* Beschloss, Michael. ''Kennedy v. Khrushchev: The Crisis Years, 1960–63'' (1991)
* Beschloss Michael. ''Mayday: Eisenhower, Kennedy and the U-2 Affair'' 1986.
* Brands, H. W. ''Cold Warriors. Eisenhower's Generation and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Brands, H. W. ''The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power '' (1997)
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict'', New York: Praeger (1961)
* Divine, Robert A. ''Eisenhower and the Cold War'' (1981)
* Divine, Robert A. ed., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis'' 2nd ed. (1988)
* Duiker William J. ''U.S. Containment Policy and the Conflict in Indochina.'' 1994.
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Fursenko, Aleksandr and Timothy Naftali. ''One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958–1964'' (1997)
* Jian, Chen. ''Mao's China and the Cold War'' (2001)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''The Diplomacy of the Crucial Decade: American Foreign Relations during the 1960s'' (1994)
* Navratil, Jaromir. ''The Prague Spring 68´'' (1998)
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998)
* Melanson, Richard A. and David Mayers, eds., ''Reevaluating Eisenhower. American Foreign Policy in the 1950s'' (1986)
* Paterson, Thomas G. ed., ''Kennedy's Quest for Victory: American Foreign Policy, 1961–1963'' (1989).
* Reynolds, David, ed. ''The Origins of the Cold War in Europe: International Perspectives'' (1994)
* Williams, Kirrian. ''The Prague Spring and its Aftermath : Czechoslovak Politics, 1968–1970'' (1997)
===Korean War===
* Brune, Lester H. ed. ''The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/14647120 online edition]
* Jian, Chen. ''China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/100020811 online edition]
* Stueck, Jr. William W. ''The Korean War: An International History'' (1995)
* Stueck, Jr. William. ''Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/99794818 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Korean War'' (2002)

==Vietnam==
* Anderson, David L. ''Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War'' (2004).
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate'' (1991). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102078651 online edition]
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000)
* Herring, George C''. America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975'' (4th ed 2001), most widely used short history.
* Kahin, George McTurnan. ''Intervention: how America became involved in Vietnam'' (1986) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.02216 online at ACLS e-books]
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam: A History'' (1983), popular history by journalist; strong on Saigon's plans.
* Kutler, Stanley ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1996). essays by experts
* Lewy, Guenter. ''America in Vietnam'' (1978), defends U.S. actions.
* McMahon, Robert J. ''Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War: Documents and Essays'' (1995) textbook.
* Schulzinger, Robert D. ''Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975.'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59258841&oplinknum=2 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1998) 3 vol. reference set; also one-volume abridgement (2001).
* Tucker, Spencer. ''Vietnam.'' (1999) 226pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103499126# online edition]
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997)
* ''The Pentagon Papers'' (Gravel ed. 5 vol 1971); combination of narrative and secret documents compiled by Pentagon. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html excerpts]

==Détente: 1969–1979==
* Ash, Timothy Garton. ''In Europe's Name: Germany and the Divided Continent'' (1993)
*Clemens, Clay. ''Reluctant Realists: The Christian Democrats and West German Ostpolitik,'' Duke University Press, 1989 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23562235 online edition]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan'' 2nd ed (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29069917 online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Detente-Confrontation-American-Soviet-Relations-Reagan/dp/0815730411/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578168&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimäki, Jussi. ''The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy,'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108656972 online edition]
* Isaacson, Walter. ''Kissinger'' (1992); [http://www.amazon.com/Kissinger-Biography-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743286979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577598&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Litwak, Robert S. ''Détente and the Nixon Doctrine: American Foreign Policy and the Pursuit of Stability, 1969-1976'' (1986)
* Nelson, Keith L. ''The Making of Détente: Soviet-American Relations in the Shadow of Vietnam'' (1995)
* Ross, Robert S. ''Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989,'' Stanford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=92018683 online edition]
* Sarrotte, M.E. ''Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Detente & Ostpolitik, 1969-73'' The University of North Carolina Press, (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107437282 online edition]
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Henry Kissinger and the American Century'' (2007)
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente.'' (2003), focus on student revolts of 1968 [http://www.amazon.com/Power-Protest-Global-Revolution-Detente/dp/0674017633/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211578729&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Ulam, Adam B. ''Dangerous Relations. The Soviet Union in World Politics, 1970–1982'' (1983)
===Primary sources and memoirs===
* Arbatov, Georgi. ''The System: An Insider's Life in Soviet Politics'' (1993)
* Kissinger, Henry. ''White House Years'' (1979); ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); ''Years of Renewal'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/075675383X/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577632&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Nixon, Richard. ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211577855&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Second Cold War: 1979–1986==
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Edmonds, Robin. ''Soviet Foreign Policy: The Brezhnev Years'' (1983)
* Mower, A. Glenn Jr. ''Human Rights and American Foreign Policy: The Carter and Reagan Experiences'' ( 1987),
* Smith, Gaddis. ''Morality, Reason and Power:American Diplomacy in the Carter Years'' (1986).
* Westad, O. A., ''The Fall of Detente: Soviet-American Relations During the Carter Years'' (1997)

==End of Cold War: 1986–1991==
* Beschloss, Michael, and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels:The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War'' (1993)
* Bialer, Seweryn and Michael Mandelbaum, eds. ''Gorbachev's Russia and American Foreign Policy'' (1988).
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/United-States-End-Cold-Reconsiderations/dp/0195085515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930854&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Transition-American-Soviet-Relations-Cold/dp/0815730608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930894&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael ed. ''The End of the Cold War. Its Meaning and Implications'' (1992) articles from ''Diplomatic History'' online at JSTOR; [http://www.amazon.com/End-Cold-War-Meaning-Implications/dp/052143128X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930923&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kyvig, David ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-World-David-E-Kyvig/dp/0275935655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930956&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Autopsy of an Empire'' (1995) by US ambassador to Moscow
* Matlock, Jack F. "The End of the Cold War," ''Harvard International Review,'' Vol. 23, 2001 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000901782 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack F. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Pons, S., Romero, F., ''Reinterpreting the End of the Cold War: Issues, Interpretations, Periodizations'', (2005)
* Wallander, Celeste A. "Western Policy and the Demise of the Soviet Union," ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 5.4 (2003) 137-177 in [[Project Muse]]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807830984/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211930989&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Intelligence==
* Aldrich, Richard J. ''The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence'' (2002).
* Ambrose, Stephen E. ''Ike's Spies: Eisenhower and the Intelligence Establishment'' (1981).
* Andrew, Christopher and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB'' (1999)
** Mitrokhin. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. ''The Mitrokhin Archive'' (1999). vol 1, on KGB
* Andrew, Christopher, and Oleg Gordievsky. ''KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev'' (1990).
* Bogle, Lori, ed. ''Cold War Espionage and Spying'' (2001), essays
* Dorril, Stephen. ''MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service'' (2000).
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: Project Muse and Ebsco
* Gates, Robert M. ''From The Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story Of Five Presidents And How They Won The Cold War'' (1997)
* Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. ''Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America'' (1999).
* Helms, Richard. ''A Look over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency'' (2003)
* Koehler, John O. ''Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police'' (1999)
* Murphy, David E., Sergei A. Kondrashev, and George Bailey. ''Battleground Berlin: CIA vs. KGB in the Cold War'' (1997).
* Prados, John. ''Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II'' (1996)
* Richelson, Jeffrey T. ''Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea.'' (2006). 702 pp.
* Rositzke, Harry. ''The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action'' (1988)
* Trahair, Richard C. S. ''Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies and Secret Operations'' (2004), by an Australian scholar; contains historiographical introduction [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106805285 online edition]
* Weinstein, Allen, and Alexander Vassiliev. ''The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era'' (1999).

==Economics and social Factors==
* Engerman, David C. "The Romance of Economic Development and New Histories of the Cold War.: ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 23-54. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: Ebsco
* Heiss, Mary Ann. "The Economic Cold War: America, Britain, and East-West Trade, 1948–63" ''The Historian'', Vol. 65, (2003)
* Hogan, Michael J. ''The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952'' (1989)
* Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye. ''Power and Interdependence'' (3rd Edition) (2000)
* Kunz, Diane B. ''Butter and Guns: America's Cold War Economic Diplomacy'' (1997)
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Morgan, Patrick M. and Keith L. Nelson (eds); ''Re-Viewing the Cold War: Domestic Factors and Foreign Policy in the East-West Confrontation'' (1997)

==Arms Race, nuclear strategies, weapons systems==
* Arnold, Lorna, with Pyne, Katherine. ''Britain and the H-Bomb.'' Palgrave, 2001. 273 pp.
* Atkins, Stephen E. ''Historical Encyclopedia of Atomic Energy.'' Greenwood, 2000. 491 pp.
* Ball, Desmond. ''Politics and Force Levels: The Strategic Missile Program of the Kennedy Administration'' (1980)
* Baylis, John. ''Ambiguity and Deterrence: British Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1964.'' Oxford U. Press, 1996. 495 pp.
* Betts, Richard K. ''Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance'' (Brookings Institution, 1987).
* Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin ''American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer'' (2006) Pulitzer Prize
* Bukharin, Oleg et al. ''Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.'' MIT Press, 2001. 693 pp.
* Bundy, McGeorge. ''Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years'' (1988).
* Craig, Campbell. ''Destroying the Village: Eisenhower and Thermonuclear War.'' Columbia University Press. 1998. 216pp.
* Carlisle, Rodney P., ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Atomic Age.'' Facts on File, 2001. 400 pp. numerous inaccuracies
* DeGroot, Gerard J. ''The Bomb: A Life'' (2006), focus on 1950s
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy'' (1983)
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ed. ''Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy Since 1945'' Oxford U. Press, 1999. 398 pp.
* Goldfischer, David. ''The Best Defense: Policy Alternatives for U.S. Nuclear Security from the 1950s to the 1990s.'' Cornell U. Press, 1993. 283 pp.
* Goodchild, Peter. ''Edward Teller: The Real Dr. Strangelove.'' Harvard U. Press, 2004. 469 pp
* Heuser, Beatrice. ''NATO, Britain, France and the FRG: Nuclear Strategies and Forces for Europe, 1949-2000.'' St. Martin's, 1997. 256 pp.
* Heuser, Beatrice. "The Development of Nato's Nuclear Strategy." ''Contemporary European History" 1995 4(1): 37-66. Issn: 0960-7773
* Hewlett, Richard, and Jack Holl. ''Atoms for Peace and War'' 3 vol; official history of Atomic Energy Commission (which built all the American bombs) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00537 1953-61 volume online]
* Holloway, David . ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1959–1956'' (1994)
* Jervis, Robert. ''The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon'' (Cornell University Press, 1989).
* Levine, Alan J. ''The Missile and Space Race.'' Praeger, 1994. 247 pp.
* Lebow, Richard Ned and Stein, Janice Gross. "Deterrence and the Cold War." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1995 110(2): 157-181. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: Jstor and Ebsco
* Mathers, Jennifer G. ''The Russian Nuclear Shield from Stalin to Yeltsin.'' St. Martin's, 2000. 227 pp.
* May, Ernest R. ''American Cold War Strategy: Interpreting NSC 68.'' (1993)
* Miller, Jerry. ''Nuclear Weapons and Aircraft Carriers: How the Bomb Saved Naval Aviation.'' Smithsonian Inst. Press, 2001. 296 pp.
* Peden, G. C. ''Arms, Economics, and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs'' (2007); 398 pp.
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''Return to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1981-1999.'' Oxford U. Press, (2000). 294 pp.
* Preble, Christopher A. ''John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap.'' Northern Illinois U. Press, 2004. 244 pp.
* Rhodes, Richard. ''The Making of the Atomic Bomb,'' Pulitzer Prize
* Snead, David L. ''The Gaither Committee, Eisenhower, and the Cold War.'' Ohio State U. Press, 1999. 286 pp.
* Spinardi, Graham. ''From Polaris to Trident: The Development of U.S. Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1994. 253 pp.
* Stumpf, David K. ''Titan II: A History of a Cold War Missile Program.'' U. of Arkansas Press, 2000. 320 pp.
* Terriff, Terry. ''The Nixon Administration and the Making of U.S. Nuclear Strategy.'' Cornell U. Press, 1995. 252 pp.
* Williamson, Samuel R., Jr. and Reardon, Steven L. ''The Origins of U.S. Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953.'' St. Martin's, 1993. 224 pp.

===Space Race===
* Cadbury, Deborah. ''Space Race: The Epic Battle between America and the Soviet Union for Dominion of Space'' (2006)
* Futrell, Robert Frank. ''Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic thinking in the United States Air Force: 1907-1960'' (1989)
* Logsdon, John M.. Robert William Smith, Roger D. Launius, ''Reconsidering Sputnik: Forty Years Since the Soviet Satellite'' (2000)
* McDougall, Walter A. ''The Heavens And the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age'' (ebooks 2001)
* Reeves, Robert. ''The Superpower Space Race: An Explosive Rivalry through the Solar System.'' 1994. 437 pp.

==Rhetoric, popular culture==
* Boyer, Paul S. ''By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age'' (1994)
* Carpenter, Charles A. ''Dramatists and the Bomb: American and British Playwrights Confront the Nuclear Age, 1945-1964.'' Greenwood, 1999. 183 pp.
* Gery, John. ''Nuclear Annihilation and Contemporary American Poetry: Ways of Nothingness.'' U. Press of Florida, 1996. 235 pp.
* Henriksen, Margot A. ''Dr. Strangelove's America: Society and Culture in the Atomic Age.'' U. of California Press, 1997. 451 pp.
* Kirby, Dianne ed. ''Religion and the Cold War'' (2003) 272 pp.
* Major, Patrick. "Future Perfect?: Communist Science Fiction in the Cold War." ''Cold War History'' 2003 4(1): 71-96. Issn: 1468-2745 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Marsh, Rosalind J. ''Soviet Fiction Since Stalin: science, politics and literature'' (1986)
* McConachie, Bruce. ''American Theatre and the Culture of the Cold War: Producing and Contesting Containment, 1947-1962.'' University of Iowa Press, 2003; 364pp
* Medhurst, Martin J. ''Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology'' Michigan State University Press, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11078688 online edition]
* Miller, D. Quentin. ''John Updike and the Cold War: Drawing the Iron Curtain'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106110847 online edition]
* Mitter, Patrick Major Rana. ''Across the Blocs. Exploring Comparative Cold War Cultural and Social History'' (2004) 150pp; [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books#q=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22&filter=all&start=1&t=jNpLfQ3aF3p-fYWfbfSXHg&sq=''The%20Iron%20Curtain%22 10% excerpt and text search]
* Mulvihill, Jason. "James Bond's Cold War Part I" ''Journal of Instructional Media'', Vol. 28, (2001)
* Parker, Stephen R., Rhys W. Williams, Colin Riordan. ''German Writers and the Cold War, 1945-61'' (1992) 250pp
* Resch, John P., et al. ''Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront'' (2005), vol 4: 1946 to Present
* Schwartz, Richard Alan. ''Cold War Culture: Media and the Arts, 1945–1990'' (2000)
* Seed, David. ''American Science Fiction and the Cold War'' (2002)
* Shapiro Jerome F. ''Atomic Bomb Cinema: The Apocalyptic Imagination on Film'' (2001)
* Stone, Albert E. ''Literary Aftershocks: American Writers, Readers, and the Bomb.'' (1994).
* Ventresca, Robert A. "The Virgin and the Bear: Religion, Society and the Cold War in Italy." ''Journal of Social History.'' Volume: 37#2 (2003) pp 439+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002442955 online edition]
* Whitfield, Stephen J. ''The Culture of the Cold War'' (1996)
* Winkler, Allan M. ''Life under a Cloud: American Anxiety about the Atom.'' (1993). 290 pp.
* Wittner, Lawrence S. ''The Struggle against the Bomb.'' 3 vol (1993-2003). antiwar movements in US and Europe
* Zeman, Scott C. "I Was a Cold War Monster: Horror Films, Eroticism and the Cold War Imagination," ''Journal of Popular Culture,'' August, 2004

==Primary sources: Documents and memoirs==
* Acheson, Dean . ''Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department'' (1992). [http://www.amazon.com/Present-Creation-Years-State-Department/dp/0393304124/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967222&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Baruch, Bernard . ''The Public Years'' (1960).
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981'' (1983);
* Charles Bohlen . ''Witness to History, 1929-1969.'' 1973
* Eden, Anthony . ''The Memoirs of Anthony Eden, Earl of Avon. Vol. 2: The Reckoning.'' London: 1965.
* Eisenhower, Dwight D. [http://www.questia.com/read/16309287 ''The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956.'' (1963) online edition]; ''The White House Years: Waging Peace, 1957-1961.'' (1965).
* Etzold, Thomas and John Lewis Gaddis, eds., ''Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945–1950'' (1978)
* Chang, Laurence and Peter Kornbluh, eds., ''The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1952'' (1985)
* Kennan George F. ''Memoirs, 1925-1950.'' (1957) [ excerpt and text search]
* Djilas, Milovan . ''Conversations with Stalin.'' 1962, Yugoslav diplomat [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Stalin-Milovan-Djilas/dp/0156225913/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967368&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hanhimaki, Jussi M. and Odd Arne Westad, eds. ''The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts'' (2004)
* Khrushchev, Nikita. ''Khrushchev Remembers'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1991); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament'' ed. Strobe Talbott (1987); ''Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost Tapes'' ed. Jerrold Schechter (1989)
* Khrushchev, Sergei. ''Khrushchev on Khrushchev: An Inside Account of the Man and His Era,'' (1990)
* Kissinger, Henry, vol 1 ''White House Years'' (1979); vol 2 ''Years of Upheaval'' (1982); vol 3 ''Years of Renewal 1974–1976'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Renewal-Henry-Kissinger/dp/0684855720/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594084&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search vol 3]
* Nixon, Richard . ''RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon'' (1981) [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594114&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State'' (1993)

==Historiography==
* Ferrell, Robert H. ''Harry S. Truman and the Cold War Revisionists.'' (2006). 142 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Truman-Cold-War-Revisionists/dp/0826216536/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594174&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila. "Russia's Twentieth Century in History and Historiography," ''The Australian Journal of Politics and History'', Vol. 46, 2000
*Gaddis, John Lewis, ''We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History'', (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/We-Now-Know-Rethinking-Relations/dp/0198780710/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594208&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22791452 online edition] * Gaddis, John Lewis. "The Emerging Post-Revisionist Synthesis on the Origins of the Cold War," ''Diplomatic History,'' Summer 1983: 171-190.
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy.'' (1982). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98423566 online edition]
* Garthoff, Raymond L. "Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: [[Project Muse]]
* Kaplan, Lawrence S. ''American Historians and the Atlantic Alliance,'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14391678 online edition]
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack E. "The End of the Cold War" ''Harvard International Review'', Vol. 23 (2001)
* Olesen, Thorsten B. Ed. ''The Cold War and the Nordic Countries: Historiography at a Crossroads.'' Odense: U Southern Denmark Press, 2004. Pp. 194. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5010023306 online review]
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Trachtenberg, Marc. "The Marshall Plan as Tragedy." ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' 2005 7(1): 135-140. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: in [[Project Muse]]
* Walker, J. Samuel. "Historians and Cold War Origins: The New Consensus", in Gerald K. Haines and J. Samuel Walker, eds., ''American Foreign Relations: A Historiographical Review'' (1981), 207–236.
* Westad, Arne Odd. "The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms," ''Diplomatic History,'' 2000, Vol. 24 in EBSCO
* Westad, Arne Odd, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) essays by scholars
* White, Timothy J. "Cold War Historiography: New Evidence Behind Traditional Typographies" ''International Social Science Review, (2000)
* William, William Appleman. ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy'' (1958) (1988 edition)
** Berger, Henry W. ed. ''A William Appleman Williams Reader'' (1992)
** ''Redefining the Past: Essays in Diplomatic History in Honor of William Appleman Williams''. Lloyd C. Gardner (ed.) (1986)
* Westad, Odd Arne, ed. ''Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Reviewing-Cold-War-Approaches-Interpretations/dp/0714681202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211594380&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Xia, Yafeng. "The Study of Cold War International History in China: A Review of the Last Twenty Years," ''Journal of Cold War Studies''10#1 Winter 2008, pp. 81-115 in [[Project Muse]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/index2.htm Berlin 1969 - midpoint of the Cold War]

== See Also==
*[[Joseph McCarthy]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Berlin Wall]]

[[category:wars]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:Military History]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

Solar thermal collector

2009-04-17T16:46:26Z

ETrundel: See below

Thermosiphon system

2009-04-17T16:44:36Z

ETrundel: Wholly plagarised. It matters not whether it's under copyright or not, in the words of the CP commandment: 'Do not copy from Wikipedia '''or elsewhere''' unless it was your original work'

Solar thermal collector

2009-04-17T11:21:33Z

ETrundel: Plagarised

Nontariff barrier

2009-04-17T11:18:26Z

ETrundel: Plagarised

Thermosiphon system

2009-04-17T11:15:35Z

ETrundel: Wholly plagarised

Auger machine

2009-04-17T11:14:20Z

ETrundel: Plagarised

Managed float regime

2009-04-17T11:12:24Z

ETrundel: Plagarised, misleading references

Swamp coolers

2009-04-17T11:10:26Z

ETrundel: Plagarised

Transmitting utility

2009-04-17T11:09:32Z

ETrundel: Nominated for deletion - wholly plagarised

Aristotle

2009-04-11T20:07:59Z

ETrundel: Change claim about over 100 basic elements - everything over 94 has to be synthesised.

[[Image:Aristotle.gif|thumb|150px|Aristotle]]

'''Aristotle''' lived from 384 to 322 BC. He was a [[Greek philosopher]] who was a student of [[Plato]] and the tutor of [[Alexander the Great]]. Aristotle emphasized reason and observation of the natural world, and he is believed by many to be the greatest [[philosopher]] of all [[time]] and the founder of [[empiricism]], the ontological grounding of [[science]]. Aristotle is considered one of the earliest [[political|politics]] thinkers and called politics "The master science"<ref>http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-politics-of-aristotle-by-peter-l-phillips-simpson.jsp</ref>.

Aristotle came to the [[Academy]] when he was seventeen and stayed there for twenty years until the death of [[Plato]]. Aristotle’s approach was in stark contrast to Plato's. Whereas Plato thought all true [[knowledge]] could be obtained [[a priori]]—a [[disembodied]] [[mind]] floating in a featureless void with no sense [[experience]] could work out everything there is to know—Aristotle thought that the natural world needed to be studied and observed for knowledge to be gained. He embarked on the massive task of observing and compiling as much information as possible on everything he could study at the time. In contrast to Plato’s interest in physics and maths, Aristotle was fascinated by biology, and classified over 500 animal species. He ultimately founded his own school, the Lyceum, and equipped it with specimens, libraries, maps and other objects found in modern [[university]].

[[Charles Murray]] said, "He more or less invented [[logic]], which was of pivotal importance in human history (and no other civilization ever came up with it independently)." <ref>http://www.isteve.com/2003_QA_with_Charles_Murray_on_Human_Accomplishment.htm</ref>

Aristotle also formulated [[Virtue Ethics]], a code of living which emphasizes what sort of person we want to be when making a decision, rather than, as tends to be the focus in modern ethical thinking, the motives or the consequences of actions (see ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]''). When Aristotle's teachings were brought back to Europe at the end of the [[Dark Ages]] by [[Arab]] [[merchant]]s, [[Aquinas]], eager to reconcile Catholicism with Aristotle's secular empiricism, developed [[Natural Law Theory]].

Aristotle was not a [[theist]] and rejected the existence of the [[Greek mythology|old gods]] many Athenians worshiped. However, he recognized the impossibility of an [[infinite regress]] of cause and effect in the natural world, and so postulated the [[Unmoved Mover]] as a [[first cause]] of the natural world. Some argue this makes Aristotle the first recorded [[deism|deist]], though he did not predate certain movements in Egypt and the near East, and his Unmoved Mover can very effectively be understood as part of man's journey towards the God of Christ.

Aristotle was mistaken about many things. He felt that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, which is intuitive but false. Like other Greek scholars, Aristotle felt there were four basic elements of nature: fire, water, air and earth, and a fifth suggested by Aristotle, ether. Actually there are over 90 natural basic elements as set forth in the [[periodic table]], as well as a possibly infinite number of synthesisable elements and more fundamental particles comprising each element.

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Socrates]]
*[[Greek Philosophy]]

==External links==
*[http://www.4literature.net/Aristotle/ Works by Aristotle]

[[Category:Deists]]
[[Category:Ancient Greek Philosophers]]

Little Boy

2009-03-24T21:10:49Z

ETrundel: Consistency = trés bein

[[Image:564ruyjh.png|right|thumb|Schematic view of the inside of Little Boy.]]
'''Little Boy''' was one of the two original [[American]] designs for the [[atomic bomb]] developed at [[Los Alamos]] during [[World War II]]. The other design was called [[Fat man]].

Little boy consisted of two masses of [[Uranium]]-235 as [[radioactive]] material. A "[[gun]]-assembly method" ignited the bomb as follows: one subcritical mass of [[uranium]] was fired at another, and together they reached a critical mass to set off a [[nuclear]] explosion.

Little boy was dropped on [[Hiroshima]] [[Japan]] on August 6th, 1945. It is estimated that the bomb killed 140,000 people.

==See Also==
*[[Fat Man]]

[[Category:Weapons]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Bridge (card game)

2009-03-24T20:48:48Z

ETrundel:

'''Bridge''' is a four-person [[card]] [[game]] in which two partners pair up and play with each other. Each player gets 13-cards. The players all bid on how many [[trick]]s they can win. The partnership that wins the bid than has to make their [[bid]]. The partner of the player who started bidding in the suit which become trumps places down his or her cards down and becomes the [[dummy]]; that is the bidder gets to play the dummy's cards. Points are alloted as to how many tricks are won.

[[Category:Games]]

Essay:Greatest Myths of World History

2009-03-19T19:09:27Z

ETrundel:

Here is a growing list of the greatest myths of world history:

#[[Marie Antoinette]]'s "Let them eat cake" was almost certainly never uttered. The phrase was likely invented by anti-monarchist revolutionaries seeking to have Marie and Louis XVI executed.
#[[Columbus]] set out to discover America; in fact, he set out to find a route to Asia, only to find an extremely large landmass in his way. Unlike many others, this myth is widely known to be false.
#That the Europeans deliberately spread smallpox to the American Indians; in fact, smallpox was endemic amongst Europeans, and they introduced it to the Americas unintentionally and without knowing the devastating effects it would have on the local population.
[[Category:Essays]]

User talk:Ozoo

2009-03-19T18:18:21Z

ETrundel: New page: {{welcome}}

Human embryos in medical research

2009-03-19T16:23:20Z

ETrundel: rmv vandalism

'''Embryonic stem cell''' research is the utilization of [[stem cells|stem cells]] from [[embryo]]s which can then be grown in a laboratory culture and produce specialized cells to treat [[disease]]s or used for research purposes. The most common source of such cells is discarded embryos at [[fertility clinic]]s - the process of [[IVF]] typically produces two or three 'leftover' embryos for each treatment, which are usually discarded. The use of embryonic stem cells in medicine has met with some controversy, particularly from the [[pro-life]] movement that is concerned about the destruction of embryos that they believe constitute human life.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900158.html</ref>

'''Adult stem cell''' research is similar except it does not use destroyed embryos, and instead is based on stem cells that can be taken from adults. These cells are less versatile than those harvested from discarded embryos, but they do not raise the associated [[ethics|ethical]] dilemmas <ref>http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm</ref> and so far have been easier to work with in achieving results.

The primary reason for wanting to use embryonic stem cells is that they are capable of producing any type of tissue in the body. Thus, theoretically, embryonic stem cell treatments offer far greater potential than adult cells - while both are capable of repairing some damage, embryonic cells could go so far as to replace entire organs. Conversely though, the greater flexibility of embryonic cells also makes them more difficult to control. A major obstacle to their use in humans is a tendency to form tumors.{{fact}} Much research is being carried out to better understand the cellular processes which cause this.

*President Bush's refusal of [[federal funding]] for new embryonic stem cell lines didn't halt major stem-cell advances, any more than the prohibition against life-threatening research on human subjects, such as the infamous Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, stopped the advance of medical treatments. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010915 Trading Places] - Will the secular left soon attack the religious right for being pro-science? - Joseph Bottum

*On March 9, 2007 Barack Obama repealed President Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=441206</ref>This was a campaign promise and leads to the expectation that he will be one of the most pro-abortion, anti-life presidents in history since many people liken this research to abortion.<ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/us-gov/congressional-record-on-choice/illinois.html</ref>

==Expectation and Potential ==

Jeremy Pearce of the ''New York Times'' wrote:
*Dr. [[Ira B. Black]], chairman of the neurosciences and cell biology department of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, described the potential of all stem-cell research as threefold. He said the expectation in the laboratory was for such cells to revive damaged and dead cells; to act as vehicle cells in introducing [[gene therapy]]; and, finally, to rally and harness the [[human body]]'s own existing stem cells.

*The end goal would be to replace [[brain cells]] lost to [[Alzheimer's]], repair injured nerve cells causing [[paralysis]] and treat [[cancers]], malfunctioning [[organs]] and other now-irreparable conditions.

*To Dr. Black, the use of embryonic cells ''fundamentally constitutes the gold standard'' in medical research because of their purity and versatility. But he cautioned: ''This is a very young field. Our areas of ignorance are far greater than our areas of knowledge.'' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E3DD1739F93BA25752C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print]

==Inducible Pluripotent Stem Cells==

Research in 2006 has facilitated the conversion of human adult somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells, namely possessing an ability to differentiate into many types of tissue. (Unlike embryonic stem cells from blastocysts, however, IPSCs are not totipotent.) By forcing the expression of certain genes, via the activation of many transcription factors (such as tetramer and hexamer TFs), using a particular medium (e.g. HIF and LIF), pluripotent stem cells can be generated. This research has great potential on account of its ability to resolve the dilemma surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells.

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:Biology]]
[[category:political Terms]]

Native element

2009-03-19T15:22:06Z

ETrundel: Iron is extracted from ore.

'''Native elements''' are those [[elements]] that occur in the free, uncombined state, and include [[metal]]lic elements ([[gold]], [[silver]]), [[semimetal]]lic elements ([[arsenic]], [[antimony]]), and [[nonmetallic]] elements ([[carbon]], [[sulfur]]). The [[metal]]s are more numerous, and because they are [[malleable]] and have a metallic appearance, they are readily recognized.<ref>Chesterman, Charles W. ''The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals'', Alfred A. Knopf: New York (1987)</ref>

''Dana's textbook of Mineralogy'' divides the Native Elements into the three sections:

'''Metals'''
*[[Copper]]
*[[Gold]]
*[[Lead]]
*[[Mercury]]
*[[Platinum]]
*[[Silver]]

'''Semimetals'''
*[[Antimony]]
*[[Arsenic]]
*[[Bismuth]]
*[[Tellurium]]

'''Nonmetals'''
*[[Diamond]] - Carbon
*[[Graphite]] - Carbon
*[[Sulfur]]<ref>Dana, Edward S. and Ford, William E. ''Dana's Textbook of Mineralogy - Fourth Edition'', John Wiley and Sons: New York (1932)</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Benjamin Franklin

2009-03-17T20:44:34Z

ETrundel: Undo revision 641002 by DorothyZ (Talk) Gonna be a long night.

[[Image:Benjamin.jpg|thumb|'''Benjamin Franklin''' by Jean Baptiste Greuze (1777)|right]]
'''Benjamin Franklin''' (January 17, 1706, [[Boston]] - April 17, 1790 [[Philadelphia]]), was an American [[polymath]], printer, inventor, statesman, and one of the most prominent scientists in the world of the [[Enlightenment]], famed for his discoveries in electricity.

Franklin's greatest invention was the United States of America. He was known as "the First American" because his efforts were critical to the formation of a new nation, the success of the [[American Revolution]] and the unification of the 13 colonies into the United States of America. Serving as the American minister to France, he secured decisive military and financial support for the Revolution, while asserting the values of democracy and [[republicanism]]. He assisted [[Thomas Jefferson]] in writing the [[Declaration of Independence]] in 1776 and helped legitimize the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787. His effective diplomacy, creative nationalism, promotion of civic virtue and devotion to [[republicanism]] earned him the top tier as a [[Founding Father]].

==Early Life==
Franklin was born on January 17, 1706 in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]] into a Puritan family. His father was Josiah Franklin, a soap and candle maker, who was married twice and had 17 children. Benjamin briefly attended the very good South Grammar School (affiliated with the Boston Latin School), then at age 10 was pulled out by his father. He was apprenticed at age 12 to his brother James Franklin (1697-1735), one of the first American printers. James published ''[[New England Courant]]'' and it became Ben's first public forum for his essays, written under the pseudonym "Silence Dogood." Ben, pretending to be a widow, wrote 14 essays in 1722. The essays drew the anger of the local authorities, who prohibited James from publishing it, citing that it mocked religion. Ben, now aged 17, was under legal obligation to his brother but broke with him, and ran away to Philadelphia on his own. Franklin thus was an unhappy and rebelliousness teenager, who had to escape Boston to transform himself into an industrious young tradesman.<ref> Ben in 1733 visited his many relatives in Boston and reconciled with his brother, and when James died at the age of 38, Ben helped his widow and took charge of James' oldest son.</ref>

==Philadelphia Printer ==
Franklin found work at a print shop in Philadelphia and soon was patronized by governor William Keith, who persuaded Franklin that he needed to go into business for himself and offered him letters of credit in London to purchase equipment. When he arrived in London in December 1724, he learned that Keith's letters of credit were useless. Ben stayed in London, working in the local print shops. In 1726, he returned to Philadelphia and again worked in print shops. In 1728, Franklin partnered with Hugh Meredith to opened their own print shop. Franklin soon bought out Meredith and in 1730 began publishing ''The Pennsylvania Gazette'' newspaper, which he bought from his former employer, Samuel Keimer. Besides the newspaper and almanac, he was a job printer and churned out pamphlets, religious tracts, playbills, tickets, advertisements, legal forms, soap wrappers, election notices, currency, carrier addresses, government documents, book labels, and other ephemeral items. In his leisure moments he taught himself to read French, Spanish, Italian, and Latin.

===Almanack===
In late 1732, he began writing and publishing ''Poor Richard's Almanack'', under the guise of "Poor Richard Saunders" and his wife, Bridget, both fictional characters. The almanack provided useful information on the seasons while enlightening the reader with witty short sayings. Franklin had a knack for rewording and improving old proverbs in a wittier manner. The almanac appeared annually from 1732 to 1758, selling over 250,000 copies.

''Poor Richard's Almanack'' shaped provincial society by trumpeting the virtuous common man and by pushing such men into active roles in the public sphere. ''Poor Richard'' outsold competing almanacs published by Atkins, Leeds, Taylor, Jerman, Birkett, and Godfrey by appealing to and providing information for the masses. In the process, Franklin spread the Whig ideology that became American [[republicanism]] to his readers. He praised them for having a better intuitive political knowledge and devotion to republican virtue than those in higher social positions. While trying to open the public sphere to men of ability (like himself), Franklin closed it to women, the poor, and non-English nationalities and races. By discussing Pennsylvania politics and other issues, ''Poor Richard's Almanack'' sought to transform its readers into diligent citizens who would help develop a politically active private sphere within colonial America.<ref> William Pencak, "Politics and Ideololgy in Poor Richard's Almanack". ''Pennsylvania Magazine Ideologyof History and Biography'' 1992 116(2): 183-211</ref>
==National communications network==
One long-term project was creating a network of printers, especially using his own apprentices who would move to other cities to establish themselves. The network of allied printer-publishers extended from New England to the West Indies and lasted from 1729 to the 1790s. It composed his relatives and business associates. It financed printers, played a vital role in developing American journalism, and influenced American morals and ethics by widely disseminating Franklin's ideology of virtue.

Upon finding apprentices whose diligence, skill, and character impressed him, Franklin would make them partners, often setting them up in printing businesses of their own. Subsequently, he would use them to expand his business associations, and as deputy postmaster-general for North America he would set up his associates as postmasters in their local areas. Postmasters were the first to receive news and could communicate it quickly to Franklin through their free use of the postal system. By building and using his communications network Franklin was able to both keep abreast of important developments in the colonies and build a network of supporters and admirers who influenced public opinion in their own cities. As the revolutionary era began, Franklin opposed colonial independence from Britain. Network infighting ensued, pitting Loyalist printers Thomas Wharton and Joseph Galloway against pro-independence publisher William Goddard, who created a private system to deliver his papers that became a model for the US Postal Service. The Continental Congress later appointed Franklin postmaster general, and he, not Goddard, received credit for America's postal system. In 1768, reacting to the Stamp and Townshend acts, Franklin became an activist in the Patriot cause. Many network printers, such as David Hall and James Holt, followed suit, as the colonists polarized between Patriots and Loyalists. As revolt approached, network newspapers became influential foes of Britain. War, turmoil, and Franklin's diplomatic absence while in France caused the network eventually to dissolve, and be replaced by networks of party newspapers.<ref> Ralph Frasca, "'The Glorious Publick Virtue so Predominant in Our Rising Country': Benjamin Franklin's Printing Network During the Revolutionary Era." ''American Journalism'' 1996 13(1): 21-37. 0882-1127; Frasca, ''Benjamin Franklin's Printing Network: Disseminating Virtue in Early America'' (2006) [http://www.questia.com/read/111742668?title=Benjamin%20Franklin's%20Printing%20Network%3a%20Disseminating%20Virtue%20in%20Early%20America online edition]</ref>

==Marriage==
In September 1730, Franklin entered a common law marriage with Deborah Read. No legal ceremony was possible because Deborah was still legally married; her husband had deserted to avoid paying a debt. Around this time, Franklin fathered an illegitimate son by an unknown woman; [[William Franklin]] was raised in his new household. In 1732, his first son with Deborah, Francis died of smallpox at the age of 4, leading Franklin to become an advocate of vaccinations. Sarah Franklin, who went by Sally, was born 11 years later in 1743.

==Civic leader==
Franklin became Philadelphia's leading citizen, founding and leading many civic organizations. He was the founder of the American tradition of boosterism, as well as a systematic thinker who analyzed urban problems in the context of rapid population growth. Franklin's understanding of and solution for the urban problems of a growing Philadelphia shaped his later ideas about city-country relationships and his pessimism regarding the future of the United States. Beginning in the 1730s, Franklin actively and publicly addressed such issues as the link between the environment and disease, fire prevention, pollution from tanneries, and restoring the water system in the center of the city (called the Dock) through various engineering projects. Franklin helped improve fire safety and waste handling by mid-century, but manufacturing interests could not be controlled. Franklin believed America would eventually exhaust its vast supply of open, unpopulated land and become increasingly urbanized and demographically imbalanced, thereby making Philadelphia's problems the nation's.<ref> A. Michal McMahon, "'Small Matters': Benjamin Franklin, Philadelphia, and the 'Progress of Cities.'" ''Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography'' 1992 116(2): 157-182. 0031-4587 </ref>

After 1727 Franklin typically operated through "the Junto", an informal club comprising friends, civil leaders and fellow tradesmen. He established America's first subscription library, the Library Company of Philadelphia, in 1731. In 1736, he organized the first volunteer fire department, the Union Fire Company. In 1743, he expanded the idea of the Junto to all of the colonies by organizing the [[American Philosophical Society]]. He helped fund the first hospital and planned a professional police force.
===Moral reform===
During the 1730s Franklin made a determined effort to use the emerging power of his press to clean up both private character and public space by writing against the excesses of drink, alehouses, fairs, gambling, and other idle pursuits. Franklin's focus on the body and its potential excess is reflective of a transformation in body image and self-image that was part of a broader range of religious, economic, and political transformations that emerged in the 18th century. All were part of a challenge to the traditional authority of church and state; the growth of commerce, the market, and the print public sphere; and the proliferation of a political ideology that presaged the Declaration of Independence. In his ''Autobiography'' (1771) Franklin utilized the body and its "inclinations" to drive his narrative. In contrast to [[Thomas Jefferson]], who appealed to abstract human rights, and [[John Adams]], who invoked historical precedent and English canon law, Franklin portrayed the Revolution as an ongoing struggle between inclination and reason.<ref> Betsy Erkkila, "Franklin and the Revolutionary Body." ''ELH'' (English Literary History) 2000 67(3): 717-741. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/30031934 in JSTOR]</ref>

Franklin did not derive his ideas on ethics and virtue from Puritan thought. The orthodox Puritans stressed the concept of a "double calling," one which distinguishes between an outward calling and an inward one. For the Puritan, the inward calling - through which man is justified by God's grace - took precedence over the outward calling - man's commitment to the world. [[Cotton Mather]]'s "Bonifacius," which Franklin cites as an influence in the development of his own philosophy, maintains this distinction. Franklin's commitment is to the outward calling. He rejects the central doctrines of Puritanism: Providence, Election, and Original Sin. Franklin actually retained few Puritan ideals.<ref>Campbell Tatham, "Benjamin Franklin, Cotton Mather and the Outward State." ''Early American Literature'' 1972 6(3): 223-233. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/25070534 in JSTOR]</ref>

Franklin's moral theories stemmed from a commonly held concept among 18th-century [[Enlightenment]] philosophers: that the development of habit can be used for achieving behavioral change. Franklin's approach to the gaining of moral progress was neopagan rather than Christian in its orientation. It stressed the gradual modification of the person's observable actions instead of an emphasis on internal spiritual change. In essence, Franklin's attitude toward habit and moral improvement was almost identical to that later espoused by [[John Stuart Mill]] and the utilitarian and associationist schools of philosophy.<ref>Norman S. Fiering, "Benjamin Franklin and the Way to Virtue". ''American Quarterly'' 1978 30(2): 199-223. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2712323 in JSTOR]</ref>

===Library===
Franklin was the main organizer of the Library Company of Philadelphia, founded in 1731 by middle class "artificers," (craftsmen, like printers, and owners of small businesses). They sought to improve their condition and status through self-education. The library reflected Franklin's belief that reading could change expectations and positions in society. The books at the library were extremely important in Franklin's intellectual development, and his experience there strengthened his beliefs about education. Through the library, members pursued many interests and became involved in natural science through Peter Collinson of London, who acted as its book agent. Nonmembers of both sexes also used the library.<ref>George Boudreau, "'Highly Valuable And Extensively Useful': Community and Readership among the Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia Middling Sort." ''Pennsylvania History'' 1996 63(3): 302-329.</ref>

===Education===
Franklin's 1749 "Proposals for the Education of Youth in Pensilvania," in which he proposes the formation of an academy and discusses its basically secular curriculum. Religion is to be taught under the rubric of history:
:"History ''will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a ''Publick Religion,'' from its Usefulness to the Publick; the advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others, ancient and modern."''

Not a college man, Franklin proposed educational changes that broke decisively with many traditional educational practices of his day. His proposals reflect his own view of the Enlightenment and its perception of the human mind. He helped establish of the "College of Philadelphia" (now the [[University of Pennsylvania. Unlike Harvard and Yale it was nonsectarian and did not primarily train clergy. Instead it educated students for careers in the professions and business and for public service. It established America's first modern liberal arts curriculum."<ref> George W. Boudreau, "'Done by a Tradesman': Franklin's Educational Proposals and the Culture Of Eighteenth-Century Pennsylvania." ''Pennsylvania History'' 2002 69(4): 524-557. 0031-4528; see [http://www.upenn.edu/about/heritage.php online]</ref>
===Militia===
Franklin helped create the Pennsylvania Militia, independent of the colonial government. The repeated [[French and Indian Wars]] were a threat to the frontier, as the French based in Canada organized and armed Indians who raided the frontier settlements. The government was controlled by the Penn family and the [[Quakers]], who refused to organize any military defense. In November 1747, Franklin wrote ''Plain Truth'' advocating the creation of a defense force, since the government would not do so. The pamphlet was enthusiastically received and Franklin organized the "Association" in 1747 to defend against attacks on settlements along the Delaware River. It was the first volunteer militia in Pennsylvania. By the end of 1747 ten volunteer regiments, composed of 124 volunteer companies (designed to have 50-100 men each), had been raised. But the militia was organized only after long debate, much of which involved biblical comparisons and religious justifications from both supporters (including Franklin) and opponents of military preparedness. The debate foreshadowed the ultimate demise of Quaker rule in Pennsylvania, since the Quaker legislators realized their refusal to defend the colony meant they had to resign office.<ref> Barbara A. Gannon, "The Lord is a Man of War, The God of Love and Peace: The Association Debate, Philadelphia 1747-1748." ''Pennsylvania History 1998'' 65(1): 46-61. </ref>

===Opposes multiculturalism===
Franklin had a vision of an ethnically homogeneous America, and so he had negative views on the large and expanding German community in Pennsylvania (usually called the "Pennsylvania Dutch.") Franklin's first contacts with the Pennsylvania Germans concerned business. In 1731 he printed two books in German for German Baptists; he also printed into pamphlet form a letter from Conrad Weiser, an Indian negotiator, to Christopher Sauer, a German-language publisher. However, in from the late 1740s into the 1750s, Franklin believed that the Germans could not be assimilated into Englishmen and thus would always be aliens. He disliked the failure of the Germans to assimilate--they had their own language, religion and customs, and showed no interest in becoming like Englishmen or in joining the militia. In "Observations on the Increase of Mankind" (1751), Franklin expressed his opposition toward German immigrants, whom he ridiculed:
:"why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements and, by herding together, establish their Language and Manners, to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Angli-fying them .. .?"

Despite Franklin's fears, German settlers helped secure the colony's borders against France's Indian supporters during the French and Indian War. Franklin's 1751 remarks came back to haunt him during the 1764 election to determine whether Pennsylvania would remain a proprietary colony or become a royal one (as Franklin advocated) when Franklin's opponents used his comments about the German colonists to defeat his position. Franklin kept silent about the Germans. He was pleased that the Reformed and Lutheran Germans supported the French and Indian War (1757-63) and, even more important, the American Revolution (1775-1783), even as the numerous German pacifist sects like the Dunkers, Amish and Mennonites remained neutral. Franklin and the Germans finally were reconciled in 1787 when Franklin College (now Franklin and Marshall College), was established to promote an better knowledge of the German and English languages, and was named in his honor by the Germans.<ref> John B. Frantz, "Franklin and the Pennsylvania Germans" ''Pennsylvania History'' 1998 65(1): 21-34. 0031-4528; Glenn Weaver, "Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Germans," ''William and Mary Quarterly'' Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1957), pp. 536-559 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1918520 in JSTOR]</ref>

In response to British conquest of French-speaking Quebec in 1759, he wrote "The Canada Pamphlet." It stands as one of the most complex and sophisticated pieces of pre-Revolutionary American thought. In it, Franklin entertained ideas of a homogeneous American population in manners, language, and religion as a reaction against ethnic and political warfare within Europe. Drawing on the ideas of [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[David Hume]], and [[Baruch Spinoza]], Franklin believed that political and ethnic relations were exclusively dominated by power, leaving no room for multiculturalism in America, preferring instead the implementation of the British Crown model to foster internal peace in the colonies. Having a reputation as anti-German hurt Franklin politically, and he dropped the nativism after 1765.<ref> Alberto Lena, "Benjamin Franklin's 'Canada Pamphlet' or 'The Ravings of a Mad Prophet': Nationalism, Ethnicity and Imperialism." ''European Journal of American Culture'' 2001 20(1): 36-49. 1466-0407 </ref>
===Demography===
In 1751 Franklin wrote "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, Etc." in which he both anticipated the [[Robert Malthus|Malthusian]] theory of population growth and quite accurately predicted the rate of American population increase for the following century and a half. He showed that the American population doubled every 25 years, while Europe and Asia were static or grew very slowly. England's population supposedly took 360 years to double. There is a paradox in Franklin's treatment of population. He maintained that the tendency of populations to expand until checked by the lack of subsistence was a cause of European miseries, yet he advocated rapid population growth for the American colonies. When his population theory is highlighted, he appears as a Malthusian pessimist; when his population values are highlighted, he appears as an ardent pro-natalist. <ref>Dennis Hodgson, "Benjamin Franklin on Population: From Policy to Theory," ''Population and Development Review,'' Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 639-661 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1973600 in JSTOR]; Alfred Owen Aldridge, "Franklin as Demographer," ''Journal of Economic History,'' Vol. 9, No. 1 (May, 1949), pp. 25-44 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2113719 in JSTOR] </ref>

==Science and invention ==
By age 42, Franklin was wealthy enough to retire from publishing and devote most of his time to his scientific pursuits, keeping in touch with the leading scientists in Britain and the Continent. Franklin combined commonsense empiricism, always paying very close attention to details and carefully recording his measurements. At the same time he was insatiably speculative, theoretical, and conjectural.

Franklin's numerous inventions include bifocal glasses<ref> see [http://www.antiquespectacles.com/topics/franklin/franklin.htm illustration]</ref>, the glass armonica, the flexible catheter, the odometer, and swimming fins.
===Stove===
In 1742 he invented a device inserted into a fireplace that gave more warmth at a lower fuel cost. His idea, worked out with his friend Robert Grace, consisted of a low stove, equipped with loosely fitting iron plates through which air circulated and was warmed before it entered the room. This "New Pennsylvania Fireplace" avoided drafts, gave more even temperatures throughout the room, and checked loss of heat through the chimney. It was an insert in an already existing hearth, and did not resemble what are now called "Franklin stoves".

===Meteorology===
The first contributions to scientific meteorology in America were Franklin's famous experiments regarding lightning, atmospheric electricity, cyclone theory, and ocean circulation, during the years from 1748 to 1775. Franklin designed the experiment that proved that electric sparks created artificially in the laboratory were similar to deadly and destructive lightning bolts, except in magnitude. He proved that there were electric charges in the atmosphere both in cloudy (or thunder) weather and in fine weather. Franklin showed that storms may move progressively "into the wind," by observing that a cyclonic storm with a northeast wind hit Philadelphia a day or so before it hit Boston, which lies to the northeast of Philadelphia. Finally, while crossing the Atlantic between 1746 and 1775, and after discussions with his cousin a ship captain, he reported there is a warm current off the New England coast setting to the northeast--the [[Gulf Stream]]--and was able to chart its boundaries fairly accurately.

===Discovering electricity===
Franklin's great scientific achievement came in his experiments and theories regarding [[electricity]]. He was first intrigued by the concept after meeting Archibald Spencer and witnessing his demonstrations on the creation of static electricity. In 1747, Spencer donated a glass tube and information on generating electricity to the Library Company. Franklin had several of these glass devices made for his experiments. He theorized that electricity was one "fluid." He discovered that when a "positive" charge is created that a "negative" charge is created as well, which became known as the [[conservation of charge]]. He also began using [[Leyden jar]]s, a glass jar with foil on the outside and a conductor such as water or metal on the inside that could be charged with a wire. Franklin determined that the charge was not stored in the conductor, as was previously thought, and was held in the glass.<ref>We now know that the Leyden jar is an early form of the [[capacitor]], that the charge is contained in a layer of the conductor facing the glass and that the glass (the [[dielectricum]]) increases the [[capacitance]] of the jar (amount of charge that can be held).</ref> Based on this knowledge, he invented the first electrical battery, which was a series of glass planks that were flanked by metal and wired together.
[[Image:Franklin - kite.jpg|left|360px]]
Franklin began noticing the similar properties of [[lightning]] and electrical sparks, which led to his most famous experiment. In 1750, Franklin outlined his proposal in two letters to Peter Collinson, which were published and presented to the Royal Society in London. On May 10, 1752 French scientist [[Thomas-François D'Alibard]] successfully performed Franklin's experiment outside of Paris. In June, before word of success had crossed the Atlantic, Franklin performed his kite and key experiment with his son, William, with similar success, which has become a popular part of American folklore.<ref> See [http://www.mos.org/sln/toe/kite.html], [http://www.thebakken.org/electricity/franklin-kite.html] and [http://www2.fi.edu/exhibits/permanent/electricity.php]</ref> This led to the invention of lightning rods [http://fi.edu/franklin/inventor/images/rod.jpg], which became widespread in the colonies, as well as Europe, bringing international fame to Franklin almost overnight. In 1753, he received honorary degrees from both Harvard and Yale, and the Royal Society in London awarded him the prestigious [[Copley Medal]].

Franklin is responsible for the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" charge. He believed he could tell the direction in which electricity traveled by observing sparks. He was wrong; the electrons, which are the particles carrying ordinary [[electricity]], move in the opposite of the direction he thought they did. As a result, when electrons were discovered, according to Franklin's designation they had to be considered as having a negative charge.
===Controversies===
There were many rivalries among scientists of the day and Franklin joined in energetically. At every point of Franklin's career, rival scientists disputed his claims to inventions and disagreed with his scientific results. Abbé Nollet, the leader of the French scientific community, reported on experiments which he believed illustrated the shortcomings of Franklin's research on electricity. Nollet maintained that Franklin's lightning rods might ignite fires by attracting electricity. Various European scientists claimed to have thought of Franklin's kite or lightning rod experiments before Franklin. Leading British experimenter William Watson claimed that most of Franklin's ideas had their origins in his own work. Political controversy swirled in England in 1772 when members of the Royal Society debated whether lightning rods should be "points" or "blunts." George III entered the controversy by demanding that blunts should be placed on the royal palace after an official committee, of which Franklin was a member, recommended pointed rods to protect the government powder magazine.<ref> I. Bernard Cohen, "Franklin's Scientist Enemies: Real or Imagined" ''Pennsylvania History'' 1998 65(1): 7-20. 0031-4528 </ref>

==Albany Plan of Union 1754==
While Franklin thought of himself as a loyal subject, and was comfortable with monarchy and aritocracy, he did express an emerging sense of Americanism. In 1753, London promoted Franklin to the position of Deputy Postmaster for the Colonies. The industrious Franklin, who frequently took inspection tours throughout the colonies, revamped the postal system to be more efficient, speeding up delivery times and creating the home delivery system. From visiting the colonies first hand, coupled with the increasing need for frontier defense, Franklin realized that some form of unification of the colonies was necessary. In June 1754, a conference was called by the London Board of Trade to meet in Albany, New York to discuss a more unified defense. He proposed the "Albany Plan of Union", which would have united the colonies under a royal governor, and given the colonies the power to tax themselves. Delegates from several colonies had come together to discuss ways to restore harmonious relations with the Indians but soon found themselves debating Franklin's plan of union, which would have created a unified colonial entity. The Plan was approved by the conference but was unanimously rejected by the colonial assemblies and by London. It was twenty years too soon for the colonies to give up their smug complacency and dependence upon London, rather than each other. In 1754 colonists assumed Britain was a benevolent empire run for the benefit of colonists, but within twenty years realized their error. The Albany plan formed much of the basis for the later American governments established by the [[Articles of Confederation]] and the Constitution.

==Politician==
In 1751, after serving as a clerk 15 years, Franklin was elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly. He used his new position to advance civic projects such as pushing legislation to maintain and light the streets. One of the primary issues faced by the Assembly was keeping their frontier border safe from Indian attacks orchestrated by the French. There was frequent conflict between the Assembly and the Proprietary leadership of the Penn family. The Penns controlled a vast majority of the lands in Pennsylvania, however, forbid them to be taxed which hampered the Assembly's ability to build an adequate militia. Penn repeatedly fought the Penn family and tried, without success, to have the King take direct control of Pennsylvania.
==Colonial agent in London==
In 1757 Franklin was sent to London as the paid representative or lobbyist of the Pennsylvania Assembly to present the colony's side of its controversy with the Penn family, which still owned the colony.

His attempts to persuade this to both Thomas Penn and Parliament failed. Although his mission was over by 1758, Franklin lingered in London for another four years. He enjoyed his time meeting with the local intellectuals and political radicals, and with a touch of regret returned to Philadelphia in 1762. His return to Philadelphia was to be short-lived. In the 1764 elections, Franklin failed to be reelected after a vicious pamphlet war labeled him as anti-German and Scottish, which made up a majority of Pennsylvania's frontier population. He found this to be a blessing in disguise when the Assembly elected to send him back to London to serve as their agent once again. He tried and failed to obtain a recall of the Penn charter. Franklin also became the paid agent in London for Georgia in 1768, for New Jersey in 1769, and for Massachusetts in 1770. These appointments, together with his wide reputation, made Franklin a sort of ambassador extraordinary from the American colonies to Britain.

He remained abroad for eighteen years, not returning to American until 1775. He was invited to join the "Lunar Society" in [[Birmingham]], where he met many intellectuals and leaders of the emerging [[Industrial Revolution]]

===Stamp Act===
In 1765, he blundered by assuring British politicians that Americans would accept the [[Stamp Act]]. He sent a letter to Philadelphia that was made public urging the colonies to simply make the best of it, leading to the misconception that Franklin had something to do with authoring the Stamp Act. News of colonial protest caused him to reverse his position and he helped negotiated trepeal of the hated tax. Afterwards, Franklin regularly opposed British attempts to tax the colonies, arguing that the colonists had the same rights as other British subjects, with the ability to govern and tax through an elected legislature.

In June 1767, Parliament passed the [[Townshend Act]], another tax on colonial goods. Franklin, still loyal to the crown, took a moderate approach - simultaneously criticizing the rash colonials and the rash government. Increasing the great divide was representation in parliament. Americans had none.
===Hutchinson letters===
In 1773, Franklin somehow obtained the originals of secret letters written written 1767-1769 by Thomas Hutchinson when he was Chief Justice of Massachusetts to a member of the British government soliciting troops and urging abridgment of American liberties. Franklin sent the letters to friends in the colony, who in turn published them. His intent was to pin the blame on people like Hutchinson for encouraging the unpopular policies, which he hoped would promote a spirit of reconciliation with Britain. He misjudged the situation, however, which led to the Massachusetts Assembly demanding that Parliament remove Hutchinson from his governorship. London by now had lost all patience with the American colonbies and had embarked on a series of punishments designed to humiliatet he Americans and make them stay in their inferior places. London sent more torops to Boston and brought Franklin before the Privy Council where he was viciously humiliated in public on January 29, 1775. He was stripped of his position of postmaster.

Franklin's political roles in London in 1757-62 and 1764-75 reshaped his political views. Although he loved the scientists and intellectuals, he hated the politicians. He came to see Britain as vain and corrupt, and he returned to his native America in 1775 with the hope that in a still-uncorrupted republic virtue might prevail.<ref> Esmond Wright, "'The Fine and Noble China Vase, The British Empire': Benjamin Franklin's 'Love-Hate' View of England". ''Pennsylvania Magazine of History And Biography'' 1987 111(4): 435-464.</ref>
===Continental Congress===
Franklin arrived back in Philadelphia on May 5, 1775, and the next day was chosen a member of the Second Continental Congress. Fighting had broken out near Boston, and the New England militia had trapped the British army in the city. The Congress became the voice of the Americans, setting up shadow governments in each colony, getting ready for a major revolt. Militia units up and down the 13 colonies began drilling for war.

Franklin, following the lead of [[John Adams]], began preparing for independence. On July 21, 1775, he presented his scheme for the [[Articles of Confederation]], similar to his Albany Plan, which called for a strong central government and a congress with proportional representation. However, few of his ideas were included in the Articles Congress adopted in 1777. The Patriots now controlled every colony, and incited by the clever reasoning of [[Thomas Paine]], realized that their [[republican]] values and way of life were incompatible with conytrol by foreign aristocrats in London. As popular sentiment for independence swelled in late spring 1776, Franklin, joined [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[John Adams]], [[Roger Sherman]], and [[Robert Livingston]] as a committee to prepare a [[Declaration of Independence]]. Jefferson, the best writer, did the drafting, with Franklin offering his editorial commentary. A new nation emerged on July 4, 1776. It had driven out all the British officials. But they returned in force in August, 1776, seized New York City, and offered to negotiate on everything except independence. Patriots demanded independence and refused to negotiate any other terms. Help was needed from France, so in December of 1776 Franklin was sent to Paris, along with [[Silas Deane]] and [[Arthur Lee]], to secure aid for the new nation.

Franklin had made his illegitimate son William Franklin, the Royal Governor of [[New Jersey]], but he remained loyal to the Crown, and father and son never reconciled.

He understood the risks the [[Founding Fathers]] were taking and told them, "We must all hang together, or we shall hang separately."

==Ambassador==
[[Image:Franklin - France.jpg|right|340px]]
Franklin was America's first minister (ambassador) to King [[Louis XVI]] in [[France]], where where he was instrumental in obtaining military and economic support for the struggle against Britain. Franklin arrived to great fanfare in France. Already well-known for his lightning experiment, his flirtatious manner and wit made him a favorite among the courtiers. Franklin systematically mingled with scientists, writers, intellectuals and government officials in Paris. He avoided court costumes and cultivated the image of a rustic American, sometimes wearing a coonskin cap. The French loved every bit of it and his popularity helped in securing recognition, money and armies and navies to fight Britain.
===Diplomat===
Franklin proved himself to be a crafty diplomat. By the end of 1777, after the great American victory at [[Battle of Saratoga|Saratoga]], the French became confident the Americans were strong enough to prevail. The French favored an alliance with the Americans, but their ally Spain was opposed, fearing that anti-imperial republicanism might emerge ion Spain's many colonies. Franklin played on the traditional hatred between the British and the French, using the press to get his messages across. On February 5, 1778 he officially signed a treaty of alliance with France with the stipulation that the U.S. must have France's approval to negotiate peace with Britain. The American revolution was now a world war, and as the Netherlands and Spain joined France, and the rest remained neutral, Britain was outnumbered on land and sea and had little hope of defeating the Allies.

Franklin and John Adams did not get along. Adams that Franklin was "too old, too infirm, too indolent and dissipated for the discharge of all the important duties of ambassador, board of war, board of treasury, commissary of prisoners...." Adams did admit that the power of Franklin's name and fame made him essential, and historians generally agree Franklin did a very good job.<ref>Gorodon Wood, ''The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin'' (2004) p 192; Stacy Schiff, ''A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America'' (2005)</ref> French aid proved to be critical to the Americans success, most notably in the decisive victory at Yorktown in October 1781. The Revolutionary war was now won, but negotiations dragged on until the Peace of Paris was signed on Sept. 3, 1783. Franklin remarked, about this time: "There never was a good war nor a bad peace."

Franklin was the most traditional American diplomat of era in his tendency to approach diplomacy as a search for compromise, his use of diplomacy as a tool for peace, his insistence on working through proper channels, and his adherence to the norms of good manners and civility. He played a central role in the peace negotiations in Paris, and to the amazement of observers at the time--and historians ever since--won highly favorable terms from the British, especially ownership of all the lands east of the Mississippi River (except Florida, which went to France's ally Spain.) Assisted by diplomats [[John Jay]] and [[John Adams]], Franklin demonstrated great foresight and diplomatic aplomb in negotiating the treaty. While military victory certainly influenced the outcome, the envoys' tenacity and adroit craftsmanship nonetheless frustrated much of the great power intrigue aimed at blocking united American independence. By 1783, few European diplomats visualized an independent United States. The American emissaries, steeped in revolutionary fervor and confident after military victory, would not settle for less.<ref> Richard Morris, ''The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence'' (1965) is the definitive history.</ref>

===Disinherits his son===
In 1789 Franklin disinherited his only living son, William, who had been Franklin's close personal friend and, beginning in the 1750s, his political protégé. Franklin used his contacts in London to have William named royal governor of New Jersey, a lucrative and highly prestigious position. In 1774, when Franklin was fired as head of the American postal system and publicly humiliated at Whitehall, he believed his son would resign as governor to protest his father's treatment. When William failed to do this and even admonished his father to accept his fate and take a comfortable retirement, an irreparable breach was created between father and son, a rift widened by the son's loyalty to the British crown during the Revolutionary War. Although William attempted to reestablish a father-son relationship, Benjamin refused and could never forgive his son for the public nature of the humiliation he felt William had caused him.<ref>Sheila L. Skemp, "Benjamin Franklin, Patriot, and William Franklin, Loyalist." ''Pennsylvania History'' 1998 65(1): 35-45. </ref>

==Building a stronger nation==
Franklin returned home in September 1785. Like all nationalists he could see that the Articles of Confederation created a government that was too weak to survive in a dangerous world It had no president and no tax base, for example. Franklin's ideas for an American republic provided a reconciliation of classical republicanism and 18th-century economic life. Franklin's demographic view put America and Britain in contrast. He criticized the British emphasis on manufacturing for export, and he preferred agriculture as the best source of national wealth. Although favoring self-sufficiency, as a means for a virtuous independence, Franklin recognized the need for encouraging a vigorous foreign commerce (with free trade). Open space and open markets were essential for republicanism to work.<ref> Drew R. McCoy, "Benjamin Franklin's Vision of a Republican Political Economy for America." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1978 35(4): 607-628. 0043-5597</ref>

Franklin can be compared favorably with [[Frederick Jackson Turner]] as a promoter of the [[Frontier Thesis]], the idea of the significance of the West in the shaping of American character. Franklin used the words frontier and West interchangeably and generally equated both of them with free land. He believed that the West was decisive in producing the phenomenal population growth of the society of his day and its "middle-class agrarianism." His frontier-inspired ideas had a demonstrable effect on public events and contributed to the coming of the American Revolution. Americans eagerly gave wide currency to Franklin's ideas. His political and diplomatic exertions contributed considerably to insure that the West would be a part of the new nation he was helping to create.<ref>James H. Hutson, "Benjamin Franklin and the West". ''Western Historical Quarterly'' 1973 4(4): 425-434. 0043-3810 </ref>

In 1787 the [[Constitutional Convention]] convened in Philadelphia to write a new Constitution. Franklin, at age 81 the oldest delegate, played an honorific role and his support helped legitimize the project.

==Slavery==
Franklin in the 1750s owned two slaves, whom he eventually freed, and also ran advertisements for slave sales in his ''Pennsylvania Gazette''. As a youth he had been a runaway himself. As a diplomat he supported slavery, but for Franklin slavery was always more of a political than a moral problem. Late in life he reversed directions and supported the abolition of the slavery trade (but not slavery itself). He joined the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and became their president in 1787; his was primarily honorific. The Society had hoped he would bring up the issue of slavery at the Constitutional Convention, which he declined to do, realizing that it would be too contentious of an issue. In November 1789, he published his ''Address to the Public'' which appealed for the emancipation of slaves and the further education of free blacks. <ref>David Waldstreicher, ''Runaway America: Benjamin Franklin, Slavery, and the American Revolution''(2004)</ref>

==Death==
Franklin died on April 17, 1790 at the age of 84 and was buried at Christ Church in Philadelphia. Civic-minded to the end, Franklin's will established a 200 year trust fund for Boston and Philadelphia which was to be used to train and educate young craftsmen. Both cities have held true to Franklin's wishes, providing aid to students and establishing the Franklin Institute of Boston.

==Religious Beliefs==

Franklin progressed from a skepticism towards Puritanism as a youth to a strong belief in God and prayers for His intervention. At all times Franklin believed in God, but was unable to define what God meant for his soul; he never joined a church. Like most in Pennsylvania, he respected freedom of religion by others, but also emphasized the importance of religion in maintaining a society; much of his writing was designed to promote moral behavior.

Young Ben was an avid reader. "From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. Pleased with the ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]],'' my first collection was of [[John Bunyan]]'s works in separate little volumes. My old favorite author, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress ... has been translated into most of the languages of Europe, and suppose it has been more generally read than any other book, except perhaps the Bible."''

In 1728, the twenty-two-year-old printer wrote "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion," which Walters (1999) argues is the most crucial text of all Franklin’s religious writings.<ref> for the text see [http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/65/Articles_of_Belief_and_Acts_of_Religion_1p.html "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" by Benjamin Franklin, November 20, 1728]</ref> Franklin embraced a concept that sanctioned the value of different religions. Walters argues this “theistic perspectivism” is the key to understanding Franklin’s religion, for it allowed him to maintain his most basic belief in a divinity as the "First Cause" while also allowing him to understand different religions and sects as different ways to honor and serve the primary creator. Franklin’s lifelong advocacy of religious tolerance and his refusal to dogmatize resulted from his understanding that all religions helped bring the "First Cause" closer to humanity, bridging the immense gulf between Creator and creation.<ref> Kerry S. Walters, ''Benjamin Franklin and His Gods,'' (1999)</ref>

Franklin left behind the [[deism]] of his youth. In a draft autobiography written mostly in 1771, nearly 20 years prior to his death, Franklin described how he came to deism as a teenager. He recalled that his ''"parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."'' <ref>http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, p.57</ref>

Franklin then abandoned his youthful deism in favor of a strong belief in an interventionist God, as reflected by his prayer request during a troubled period of the [[Constitutional Convention]]. In a letter dated March 9, 1790, the last letter Franklin ever wrote, he expressed his strong faith in God and the possibility of heaven:
:''"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

:''"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and His Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubt as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I need not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm in its being believed, if that belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the world with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure."'' <ref>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html</ref>
===Whitefield===
Franklin admired [[George Whitefield]], who first visited the colonies in 1738 and played a major role in the [[First Great Awakening]]. Franklin saw Whitefield as a fellow intellectual, but thought Whitefield's plan to run an orphanage in Georgia would lose money. Franklin published several of Whitefield's tract. He was intrigued and himself moved by Whitefield's ability to preach and speak with clarity and enthusiasm to crowds ranging in the thousands. Franklin was a ecumenist and approved of Whitefield's ability to appeal to members of many denominations. Franklin was not moved by the Methodist evangelist's revivals, but did conclude that religiosity was a good thing for other people, so at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he proposed a prayer for divine intervention to aid the troubled proceedings.. After one of Whitefield's sermons, Franklin noted the:
:"wonderful...change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem'd as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro' the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street."<ref>''The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin,'' p.104-108; Samuel J. Rogal, "Toward a Mere Civil Friendship: Benjamin Franklin and George Whitefield." ''Methodist History'' 1997 35(4): 233-243. 0026-1238 </ref>

A lifelong close friendship developed between the revivalist preacher and the worldly, secular humanist. Looking beyond their public images, one finds a common charity, humility, and ethical sense embedded in the character of each man. True loyalty based on genuine affection coupled with a high value placed on friendship helped their association grow even stronger over time.

==Fame==
By 1776 Franklin was the most famous American in the world. He was one of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers, early political figures and statesmen of the [[United States]].

In the years immediately following his death, Franklin's reputation fell upon evil days. His political enemies as well as [[Federalist Party]] journalists systematically emphasized the less attractive aspects of his character and minimized his achievements. The calumny was repeated until the 1850s, when the first real attempts were made to paint a broader portrait of this many-sided man. Franklin's "rags to riches" career had a natural attraction in the go-getter mood of the [[Gilded Age]] and he became the patron saint of "getting on," a role that he has not yet lost. The xenophobia of the period also affected the image of Franklin in that his prudential philosophy appeared less an expression of selfishness than a means of achievement expressive of the best in the American national character. The late 19th century also saw the beginning of real Franklin scholarship.<ref> Richard D. Miles, "The American Image of Benjamin Franklin" ''American Quarterly'' 1957 9(2): 117-143. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2710628 in JSTOR]</ref>

Franklin is one of the few non-presidents whose likeness appears on U.S. currency. Franklin graces the $100 bill while [[Alexander Hamilton]] appears on the $10 bill.

In 1933, Isamu Noguchi (1904-88) designed a monument to Franklin. For years, the project languished. It finally came to fruition in Philadelphia in 1984 as “Bolt of Lightning . . . Memorial to Ben Franklin.”

Franklin was highly regarded throughout Europe as a leader in science and diplomacy, and as the representative American and the symbol of the New World's integrity and progress. The intellectual, poltiical and scoial leaders of France viewed Franklin as the epitome of the enlightened legislator, a brilliant inventor, and perceptive economist. He inspired his contemporaries and successive generations of Frenchmen to eulogize him in the arts. His unassailable reputation also encouraged divergent political factions to claim Franklin as a mentor after his death in 1790. Franklin was a figure of the Enlightenment, two countries, and two revolutions and there are still reminders of him in France today.<ref> J. A. Leith, "Le Culte de Franklin en France avant et pendant la Révolution Française," ["France's Cult of Franklin before and during the French Revolution"]. ''Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française,'' 1976 226 48(4): 543-571. 0003-4436 </ref>

While most historians have admired Franklin's achievements, British literary critic [[D. H. Lawrence]] ridiculed Franklin as excessivelyt middle class. Lawrence spent time in the United States in the 1920s but came to dislike the country. He focused on Franklin as a personification of American culture in two essays. Lawrence's disdain for Franklin was based largely in their different philosophies. Franklin felt man was perfectable, and could excel through hard work, while Lawrence saw man as an imperfect, creative, fragmented being, for whom the body and emotions are central to achieving happiness.<ref> Ormond Seavey, "D. H. Lawrence and 'The First Dummy American'." ''Georgia Review'' 1985 39(1): 113-128. 0016-8386; D. H. Lawrence, ''Studies in Classic American Literature'' (1923), [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/LAWRENCE/dhlch02.htm online edition of ch. 2 on Franklin]</ref>
===Join or Die===
[[Image:Join-die.jpg|thumb|290px|left]]
The famous cartoon entitled "Join, or Die," printed on 9 May 1754 in Franklin's ''Pennsylvania Gazette'', shows a sliced up rattlesnake that forms a map of the colonies. It is impotent unless it joins together, as nature clearly intended. Rattlesnakes--powerful and dangerous creatures that were not found in Britain--were often used to represent America. Georgia, the newest colony, is missing, as is Delaware (then part of Pennsylvania). The cartoon alludes to an old myth that a snake that had been cut into pieces would come back to life if the sections were reassembled before sunset, Franklin based his cartoon on a 17th-century French emblem book by Nicolas Verrien which includes a snake divided into two parts with the motto: 'Se rejoindre ou mourir' ('Join or die').

While the idea behind the illustration was Franklin's, historians have not discovered who did the actual engraving. In form the illustration follows the plan of an emblem book illustration, with a motto, a symbolic picture, and an explanatory text; Franklin even referred to it in correspondence as an "emblem." Franklin was responsible for many visual creations, such as cartoons, designs for flags and paper money,
emblems and devices. He possessed an extraordinary knowledge of symbols and heraldry. The snake image may be a composite of those found in Mark Catesby's ''The Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands'' (1731-43). The iconic image of national unity became widespread in political illustrations concerning the [[Stamp Act]] of 1765, the American Revolution, and both the Union and Confederate causes in the American Civil War.<ref>Karen Severud Cook, "Benjamin Franklin and the Snake that would not Die," ''British Library Journal'' 1996 22 (1): 88-112. 0305-5167; Mark Bryant, "The First American Political Cartoon," ''History Today'' v. 57#12 (December 2007) pp 58+. [http://www.questia.com/read/5024806593?title=The%20First%20American%20Political%20Cartoon online edition]</ref>

==Autobiography==
A year after Franklin's death, his unfinished draft autobiography, entitled "Memoires De La Vie Privee," was published in Paris in March of 1791, and portions soon appeared in English. The first complete edition appeares in 1868. It was one of the first and greatest American autobiographies and appears in many editions. Historians have treated the ''Autobiography'' as an allegory for the paradigm of American upward social mobility as well as representing the early economic and political success of America. Beyond this basic representativeness, it endorses the economic promise of free enterprise by using Franklin's life experience to advocate the new nation's economic potential and creditworthiness. Franklin aligns his own history with that of the fledgling United States, in effect equating his ability to successfully capitalize on credit with that of the nation. By depicting his own public credibility, Franklin was able to translate his reputation and promise of success into an endorsement of the viability of American life, intertwining self- and national promotion. In sharp contrast to Jefferson's glorification of the yeoman farmer as the carrier of republican virtue, Franklin looked to the cosmopolitan city for the advancement of mankind, as he tells how the youth arrives in the idyllic city of Philadelphia, where adherence to principles of independence, morality, and industry bring him success.<ref> Jennifer Jordan Baker, "Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography and the Credibility of Personality." ''Early American Literature'' 2000 35(3): 274-293. 0012-8163; James L. Machor, "The Urban Idyll of the New Republic: Moral Geography and the Mythic Hero of Franklin's Autobiography." ''Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography'' 1986 110(2): 219-236. </ref>

The ''Autobiography'' gave an incomplete view of Franklin. The persona that Franklin assumed here was merely another of the several public roles he adopted in his writings and political activities. He believed that personal growth could only be accomplished by surrendering to a public function, and that the public forum should be a community for discourse rather than a marketplace for personal competition and acquisition.

==External links==
* [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/franklin.htm "Guide to Benjamin Franklin" by Richard Jensen January 2007]
*[http://www.english.udel.edu/lemay/franklin/ Leo Lemay, ed. ''"Benjamin Franklin: A Documentary History"]

==Basic readimgs==
* Becker, Carl Lotus. "Benjamin Franklin," ''Dictionary of American Biography'' (1931) with hot links [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/franklin.htm#becker online]
* Brands, Henry. ''The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin'' (2000)- excellent long scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Times-Benjamin-Franklin/dp/0385495404/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222697&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Isaacson, Walter. ''Benjamin Franklin: An American Life'' (2004) - good popular biography [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Franklin-American-Walter-Isaacson/dp/074325807X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222697&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ketcham, Ralph. ''Benjamin Franklin'' (1966) 228 pp[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=34300175 online edition], by short biography by a scholar
* Morgan, Edmund S. ''Benjamni Franklin'' (2003) the best short introduction [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Franklin-Yale-Nota-Bene/dp/0300101627/ref=pd_bbs_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222697&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Van Doren, Carl. ''Benjamin Franklin'' (1938), standard older biography [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Franklin-Carl-Van-Doren/dp/193154185X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222991&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Wright, Esmond. ''Franklin of Philadelphia'' (1986) - excellent scholarly study [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Philadelphia-Belknap-Esmond-Wright/dp/0674318102/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203223116&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Detailed Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Becker, Carl Lotus. "Benjamin Franklin," ''Dictionary of American Biography'' (1931) - vol 3, with hot links [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/franklin.htm#becker online]
* Brands, Henry. ''The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin'' (2000)- excellent long scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Times-Benjamin-Franklin/dp/0385495404/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222697&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Isaacson, Walter. ''Benjamin Franklin: An American Life'' (2004) - well written popular biography [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Franklin-American-Walter-Isaacson/dp/074325807X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222697&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ketcham, Ralph. ''Benjamin Franklin'' (1966) 228 pp[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=34300175 online edition]
* Morgan, Edmund S. ''Benjamni Franklin'' (2003) the best short introduction [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Franklin-Yale-Nota-Bene/dp/0300101627/ref=pd_bbs_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222697&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Van Doren, Carl. ''Benjamin Franklin'' (1938), standard older biography [http://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Franklin-Carl-Van-Doren/dp/193154185X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203222991&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Wood, Gordon. ''The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin'' (2005), influential intellectual history by leading conservative historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Americanization-Benjamin-Franklin-Gordon-Wood/dp/0143035282/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236327205&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wright, Esmond. ''Franklin of Philadelphia'' (1986) - excellent scholarly study [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Philadelphia-Belknap-Esmond-Wright/dp/0674318102/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203223116&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

===Specialized Scholarly Studies===
* Anderson, Douglas. ''The Radical Enlightenments of Benjamin Franklin'' (1997) - fresh look at the intellectual roots of Franklin
* Buxbaum, M.H., ed. ''Critical Essays on Benjamin Franklin'' (1987)
* Chaplin, Joyce. ''The First Scientific American: Benjamin Franklin and the Pursuit of Genius.'' (2007)
* Cohen, I. Bernard. ''Benjamin Franklin's Science'' (1990) - Cohen, the leading specialist, has several books on Franklin's science
* Conner, Paul W. ''Poor Richard's Politicks'' (1965) - analyzes Franklin's ideas in terms of the Enlightenment and republicanism
* Dull, Jonathan. ''A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution'' (1985)
* Ford, Paul Leicester. ''The Many-Sided Franklin'' (1899) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-many-sided-franklin-by-paul-leicester-ford.jsp online edition] - collection of scholarly essays
* Lemay, J. A. Leo, ed. ''Reappraising Benjamin Franklin: A Bicentennial Perspective'' (1993) - scholarly essays
* Lemay, J. A. Leo. ''The Life of Benjamin Franklin'' the most detailed scholarly biography, with very little interpetation; 3 volumes appeared before the author's death in 2008
** ''Volume 1: Journalist, 1706-1730'' (2005) 568pp [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Benjamin-Franklin-Journalist-1706-1730/dp/0812238540/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search]
** ''Volume 2: Printer and Publisher, 1730-1747'' (2005) 664pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Benjamin-Franklin-Publisher-1730-1747/dp/0812238559/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search]
**''Volume 3: Soldier, Scientist, and Politician, 1748-1757'' (2008), 768pp [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Benjamin-Franklin-Scientist-Politician/dp/0812241215/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236306986&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* McCoy, Drew R. "Benjamin Franklin's Vision of a Republican Political Economy for America." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1978 35(4): 607-628. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1923207 in JSTOR]
* Skemp, Sheila L. ''Benjamin and William Franklin: Father and Son, Patriot and Loyalist'' (1994)- Ben's son was a leading Loyalist

===Primary Sources===
* Franklin, Benjamin. ''Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin'', ed. L.W. Labaree et al. (1964) [http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/ online edition] - there are many editions
* Franklin, Benjamin. ''Franklin: Writings'', ed. J.A. Leo Lemay, Library of America (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Writings-Library-America-Benjamin/dp/0940450291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207333906&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]; [http://infomotions.com/alex/?cmd=search&query=creator:Franklin complete text online free]
*Labaree, Leonard W., et al., eds., ''The Papers of Benjamin Franklin'' 35 vols. to date (1959-2002) - definitive edition, through 1781. This massive collection of BF's writings, and letters to him, is available in print form at large research libraries. [http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/index.jsp?src=g1&gclid=CJ6my-GEwpICFSgwiQodDQldrA the complete text, searchable, is online free from Yale] It is most useful for detailed research on very specific topics.
*[http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/ Yale edition of complete works of Benjamin Franklin]
*[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/bob_morse_04/ The Electrical Writings of Benjamin Franklin] Collected by Robert A. Morse, 2004.
*[http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html Franklin's Last Will & Testament] Transcription.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Franklin, Benjamin}}

[[Category:Inventors]]
[[Category:Founding Fathers]]
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:American Revolution]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[category:diplomacy]]
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category:Enlightenment]]

World History Lecture Eight

2009-03-17T18:44:27Z

ETrundel: /* The Scientific Revolution */

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

Our midterm exam will be next week. It will be multiple-choice, perhaps 30 minutes in length, and will cover lectures one through eight (including this one). Items and topic mentioned on the homework will be given greater priority in designing the questions.

Remember and use the following test-taking tips for multiple-choice exams. You can improve your scores enormously by following and mastering these tips.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. You want an answer that fits the question best, like a key fitting a lock.

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one. This can bump your score up another point or two.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. Don't give up too easily on figuring out a question.

'''Avoid Broad Language in Answers''': Broad or sweeping terms like "only", "never", "solely", "everyone", "always", "purely", "all" and "every" are often signs of '''incorrect''' answers because they are rarely true.

Test-taking on multiple-choice exams is a skill that can be mastered with practice, determination and cleverness.

== Introduction ==

This lecture will be briefer than usual, with no homework questions, in order to give you time to prepare.

On September 11, 1683, Muslims made a second major attempt to conquer Europe (recall that Charles the Hammer turned back their first attempt). A massive Islamic army arrived at the Gates of Vienna. An alliance of Christian armies, led by the Polish King Jan III Sobieski, defeated the Muslim force.<ref>http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/other-september-11th.html</ref> Some have observed that "9/11" was an anniversary of this day.

Two other momentous events happened in the 1600s which would also affect the world forever. In 1607, Englishmen established a permanent settlement at Jamestown, Virginia. In 1611, the King James Bible was published with this introduction:<ref name="KJV">http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html</ref>

:THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.

Some might say that the publication of the King James Bible was more significant than the settlement at Jamestown. This version of the Bible, which became known as the "Authorized Version," was a spectacular work that transformed and elevated the entire English language to new heights. Even a Catholic scholar expressed the highest praise for this work, which was shared by all:<ref name="KJV"/>

:The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.

To this day many feel that the King James Bible is the finest English translation available, despite the antiquity of some of its terminology. It is free from modern translations that hide the existence and wrath of Hell, for example. But for the purposes of course, we are interested in how this was a defining moment in the development of the English language, and how the language has grown since then.

The King James Bible established a framework of knowledge of the English language, and it began to develop rapidly afterward. English is unique in its ability to develop new words, at a rate of about 1000 new words per year.<ref>See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]].</ref> This enables English to constantly improve its ability to express concepts. English easily incorporates and adapts words from other languages, such as "detente" (French for a lessening in tensions between nations) and "tsunami" (Japanese for a massive tidal wave).

English has the smallest alphabet of widely used languages;<ref>Some describe the Hebrew alphabet, without vowels, has having only 22 characters, but modern Hebrew (spoken by a few million people) has more characters than English. See http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hebrew.htm . The obscure [[Elder Futhark]] runic writing has an alphabet of 24.</ref> this compact simplicity gives English an advantage, particularly in using computers. For example, English lacks accented (letters bearing a diacritic mark such as the "e" in "noël"), hybrid (such as the digraph ligature æ often used in British English in words such as encyclopædia or the ampersand character - a contraction of "et"), and pictograph characters.

It helps that English uses a writing system that has some relation between sounds and symbols as opposed to a purely ideographic system. This also applies to all other languages using alphabets, abjads, syllabaries, and so on - such as ancient Greek and Latin (though English developed from German, not from Greek or Latin).

English features easy interchangeability of nouns, verbs, and adjectives, without much variance in form for pronouns and verbs. That promotes easy communication through brief, cryptic messages, the style preferred by electronic media. English enjoys a powerful pipe-like quality, such that one phrase can be cut and pasted to another phrase with ease. Computer-based cutting and pasting text works more efficiently in English than in many other languages, such as those using pictorial characters. This gives English an advantage in the internet medium, and about 80% of the internet uses English. English is now the second most widely spoken language in the world, with only Chinese dialects spoken by more people. English is overwhelmingly the second language of choice for non-English-speaking people.<ref>See Barbara Wallraff, “What Global Language?” 286 Atlantic Monthly No. 5, at 52 (Nov. 2000) (noting, inter alia, that “English is the working language of the Asian trade group ASEAN” and is also “the official language of the European Central Bank”).</ref>

==The Age of Exploration==

The “Age of Exploration” consisted of Christians from Europe searching the rest of our globe to spread the faith and seek wealth, particularly between 1450 and 1650. This began the “Global Age” in world history, which continues to this day.

As Europe was emerging from the Middle Ages and experiencing the Renaissance, people had the curiosity and the courage to look beyond their own continent to others. Scientific discoveries and technological improvements made it easier to travel across the vast oceans. Christians sought to spread their faith far and wide, and merchants sought new goods and business opportunities in both the East and West. North and South America awaited visits by the Europeans.

The Portuguese were the first great explorers. They developed the “caravel”, a small, lightweight ship with three lateen-sailed masts that could hold much more cargo than previous ships. The more cargo that a ship could hold, the greater its profits would be, as cargo consisted of goods that could be picked up in a faraway land and sold upon the ship’s return to its homeland. European demand was strong for exotic Indian goods, especially spices, and this drove explorers to discover new routes to India different from the Eastern Mediterranean trade controlled by the Ottomans.

The discovery of new western routes accidentally led to the discovery of lands in the New World (Western Hemisphere). Portugal and Spain then emerged as the two major players in what was to become an intense European competition for exploration, conversion and colonization.

===Portuguese Exploration===

The Portuguese initiated the age of exploration in Europe as early as about 1419, when Prince Henry the Navigator established his School of Navigation and made it his life’s work to explore the West African coast and reach the Indian Ocean. His ships reached as far as Sierra Leone, but he failed to reach India. Another explorer named Bartholomew Diaz likewise failed to reach India, but he did manage to sail around the tip of Africa (the Cape of Good Hope) in 1487 and thereby establish the route to India.

In 1492, with funding from Spain (see below), Christopher Columbus embarked on his famous voyage with the dream of reaching India, and he failed in that goal also. It was Vasco da Gama who finally reached India by sailing eastward around Africa and up the East African coast between 1497 and 1499, with the help of the powerful monsoon winds. Shortly thereafter, regular trade was established with India under the Portuguese King Manuel, and conflict began with the Muslims over dominance of Indian Ocean trade.

Later, with funding and men from Spain (see below), the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan became the first to lead an expedition around the globe.

===Spanish Exploration===

The Spanish entered the scene in the year 1492—during the reign of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who were working hard to defeat Islam and establish Christianity as the only religion in Spain. Known as the “Reconquista” (or Reconquest) of Spain, this was accomplished first through the reconquest of Granada, the last Muslim city in Spain. As explained in the prior Lecture, Queen Isabella ordered all Muslims and Jewish residents to convert or leave Spain. Initially, this caused Spain an economic and academic setback, as Jewish residents had comprised a large number of scholars and merchants.

It was during this time that a young Italian by the name of Christopher Columbus first approached the Portuguese King John II to ask him for financial support. Columbus, like many from the Italian city of Genoa, was an expert mariner, having started as early as the age of 14. He had studied the works of Ptolemy on his own; Columbus did not attend formal school, just as homeschoolers do not today. Columbus at all times was a devout Christian, writing frequently about his faith in his diary. His desire to sail to India was motivated in large part by his attempt to spread the Christian faith. He repeatedly cited a desire to convert pagans to Christianity when he sought support for his voyage. Late in life, even when treated as a prisoner, he sought to devote all his money and efforts towards winning back Jesus Christ’s Holy Sepulchre (burial cave) from Muslims in the Holy Land.

King John II denied Columbus’s request to fund his voyage across the Atlantic. Indeed, Columbus was ridiculed for seeking to reach India by sailing west rather than east.

The funding for Columbus came from Spain instead. Though Columbus was Italian, it was Spain who financed his voyages as the strain of fighting the Muslims subsided. Isabella and Ferdinand felt secure in granting the Genoese upstart Christopher Columbus his long-awaited funds. Beginning on August 3, 1492, Columbus embarked on four voyages, perhaps becoming the first European to discover the New World, although at first he believed he had reached India (hence his name for the inhabitants of the New World: “Indians”). The discoveries by Columbus included the Bahamas, Cuba, Haiti, San Salvador, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad and Honduras. Columbus’ astounding success presented an increasing challenge to Spain’s Portuguese rivals.

The pope finally resolved this rivalry between Spain and Portugal in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which established an 1100-mile long “Line of Demarcation.” This division of world territories gave Portugal trading rights in India, China, the East Indies, East Brazil and Spanish Americas. Spain was given control of the remaining, vast majority of the Americas. Ferdinand Magellan then led the first successful voyage to circumnavigate the globe in 1519. Although Magellan was killed by Philippine natives before completing the last leg of the journey, he was the first to sail around Cape Horn at the tip of South America to enter the Pacific Ocean. Only 18 of approximately 250 sailors made it back to Spain three years later, in 1522.

As a result of Magellan’s journey, Spain gained control of many South American territories, including Mexico and Peru. Spain also obtained control over the Philippines in the Far East. Spanish warrior Hernando Cortes led the conquest of Mexico, with the initial help of the Aztecs, many of whom believed Cortes was their god Quetzalcoatl (who, conveniently for the Spanish, was expected to appear that very year). Cortes captured the Aztec ruler Moctezuma (popularly known as “Montezuma”) and conquered their empire. Cortes was also aided by an Aztec woman named Malinche, who served as a guide and translator. Cortes burned the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan and built Mexico City in its place.

Francisco Pizzaro led the conquest of Peru, betraying and eventually killing their emperor, Atahualpa. The ancient Peru city of Cuzco was completely destroyed and replaced with the city of Lima. While in Peru, Pizzaro also discovered the greatest silver mine in the Americas, the vast majority of which was traded with China, whose economy was based on silver. Both Cortes’ and Pizzaro’s conquests were facilitated by the use of horses, superior weapons, and devastating European diseases like smallpox. The native population had no immunity to such disease, and simply giving them a bunch of blankets exposed to the deadly germ could end up killing many natives.

Using the Spanish system of “encomiendas”, many of the South American natives became slaves to their Spanish conquerors. A Dominican monk and missionary, [[Bartholomew de Las Casas]], sent sensational descriptions to the Spanish government of the supposed atrocities committed against the “patient, meek and peaceful” natives by the Spanish conquistadors, whom he described as “cruel tigers, wolves and lions.” Although some of what Las Casas said was true, historical research has proved most of it to be false and exaggerated. However dishonest his methods may have been, Las Casas’ reports eventually led to the king of Spain issuing “New Laws,” by which exploitation of the natives was ended by the replacement of the old “encomiendas” with the new “repartimientos”. Both systems are criticized as unfair today. The system of “encomiendas” was based on royal grants of land, while the system of “repartimientos” was based on gifts of Indian labor. Either way, the Indians ended up working for the Spanish.

===Exploration by Other Nations===

Other European nations participated in exploration as well. King Henry VII of England sent John Cabot, a resident of London born in Genoa (like Columbus), to explore across the Northern Atlantic Ocean. Cabot discovered Newfoundland and the New England coast in 1497 and 1498, respectively, and the land became the property of England. From France, Jacques Cartier discovered Canada and the Mississippi Basin, including Louisiana in 1534 and 1541. These colonies were initially less significant than those in South America, and there was a lack of initial interest in North America because it did not have the gold and silver of South America. Whereas intermarriage and cultural blending occurred heavily among the Spanish and the Indians in South America, it barely existed between the English or French and the Indians in North America.

Of course, eventually the interest and development in North America increased and surpassed that of South America. Commercial competition between European nations in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)—a conflict brought to America in the form of the French and Indian War. This War marked the end of French (and Spanish) influence in North America, and signaled the rise of Britain as the primary world superpower for the next 150 years.

===The Slave Trade===

In what is known as the “Columbian Exchange,” plants and animals were brought from America to Europe and vice-versa. Columbus brought from Europe to America wheat, melons, onions, grapes, sugar cane and horses. Horses proved to be influential not only in the European conquest of native peoples but also in the natives’ abilities to avoid white settlers, particularly among the Plains Indians in North America.

America had new fruits and vegetables that were then exported to Europe and Africa. America introduced the white potato to Europe and the manioc or cassava to Africa. Chili peppers, pumpkins, squash and peanuts were also brought back from America and became popular in countries such as India. These new foods helped increase population, and in Africa the population growth almost cancelled out population losses caused by the slave trade.

Slaves became a major part of the Columbian Exchange. In 1455, a “papal bull” (formal letter by the pope) justified a “right” of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The Spanish had already been enslaving South American natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of African slaves were brought by the Spanish and Portuguese to Mexico, Peru, the Caribbean and especially Brazil. The growth of sugar—which had first been introduced to Europe when the Muslims ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

[[Slavery]] was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of “chattel” slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the “Triangular Trade” between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the “triangle” of trade.

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, and in South America it was finally ended in Brazil in 1888.

===China’s Role in the Age of Exploration===

In the East, under the Ming dynasty, Emperor Yongle sent a band of explorers led by “Zheng He” throughout parts of southern Asia, Persia, Arabia and Africa. The crew of over 28,000 men embarked on seven naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean from 1405 to 1423 and as a result, trade with East Africa began. However, by the 1430s, Mongol raids caused the Chinese to withdraw from exploration for the time being, and instead spend their time and money on defenses such as repairing the Great Wall.

The Ming dynasty thereby retreated from the world stage, mostly in order to strengthen Chinese defenses against Mongol threats. Beijing became the capital of China, and eventually the Ming rulers began to retreat even more completely from the outside world, living in an elaborate Beijing palace known as the “Forbidden City.” When a devastating famine occurred in China, the rulers were living extravagantly in their secluded palace and cared little for the plight of the peasants. The people of China revolted, and in 1644, the Ming Dynasty was replaced with the Qing, made up of the Manchu peoples.

Under the Qing dynasty, marriage between members of the Chinese and Manchurians was forbidden, and the official spoken language remained Chinese. Female infanticide occurred, as well as the practice of binding the feet of rich girls and, increasingly, middle class girls also. The primary philosophy was Neo-Confucianism, a mixture of Buddhism and traditional Confucianism. Jesuits attempted to evangelize China, but were not very successful. Nevertheless, a Jesuit presence in China contributed to the exchange of ideas and technology between the East and the West.

China did not withdraw completely from world trade during the Ming and Qing dynasties. China continued to trade with the Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Dutch, mainly for silver, which had become the Chinese currency, and with the Russians for furs. Under the Ming dynasty, beautiful blue and white porcelain was produced and exported. The influence of the Ming vase spread throughout the Muslim and Christian worlds, as seen in Holland through the production of Delft pottery and in England, Wedgwood China. Other Chinese exports included silk and tea, and imports consisted of spices, textiles and animal skins from Europe. Maize, sweet potatoes and peanuts were brought over from the Americas and became popular crops in China.

==Growth of Nation-States and Monarchs==

The development of European nation-states continued throughout the Renaissance and Age of Exploration. In the 1400s and 1500s, the most powerful nation-states were England, France and Spain. The Holy Roman Empire, which consisted of parts of Italy and Germany, was a powerful but declining force. Enemies that weakened the Holy Roman Empire included the Ottomans and French enemies, who resisted its expansion. The fact that the cultures of Germany and Italy were very different also contributed to the downfall of the Holy Roman Empire, as did the Reformation.

The European nation-states grew in power by strengthening their central authority. They increased bureaucracy, the size of their armies and the amounts of their taxation. The rise of absolutist rulers contributed to the centralization of France, Spain, Austria, Russia and Prussia. The nature of an absolute monarch was expressed well in this famous quote attributed to Louis XIV (1527-1598), “L’etat c’est moi!” (I am the state). Absolute monarchs controlled all aspects of government and society including the church, the bureaucracy and the military. Absolute monarchs claimed “divine right” to rule, stating that they had been appointed by God himself and were therefore responsible to God alone. They enjoyed “sovereign immunity” under the view that “the king can do no wrong,” a principle that continues to exist in English and American law today (unless government “waives” its immunity with a law granting certain rights to sue it).

Religious conflict in England between Catholics and Anglicans caused absolutism to fail there. The “Glorious Revolution” (so named by supporters of the Church of England) brought down the Catholic King James II and the idea of divine right along with him, placing William and Mary on the throne in 1688. In France, however, absolutism triumphed until the French Revolution, especially with the reign of Louis XIV, the leading absolute monarch in Europe. The French court at Versailles during the reign of Louis XIV, who called himself the “Sun King,” was considered rich in culture and an example to other societies. Truth be told, it was also extravagant and immoral.

In Spain, Philip II (1638-1715), who was the great-grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand, worked to cleanse Spanish territories of all religions but Catholicism, and viewed Elizabeth I of England as his main rival. But his mighty Spanish Armada was defeated by a quicker English fleet in 1588. In 1579, William of Orange led the Netherlands in a revolt against their Spanish masters. These two losses contributed to the weakening of Spanish power.

Meanwhile, artistic pursuits flourished during this period in Spain. El Greco (1541-1614), a painter, architect and sculptor best known for his paintings of saints and martyrs, and drew a stunning of a storm over a Spanish town (“A View of Toledo”). Diego Velázquez painted portraits of the royal family and scenes from daily life at court. In 1605 Miguel de Cervantes wrote the novel Don Quixote, probably the most influential piece of Spanish literature, and Lope de Vega wrote an estimated 2,000 plays.

In Russia, absolute emperors known as “czars” arose. The first czar of Russia was Ivan IV “the Terrible,” who executed many innocent people during his fearful reign from 1533 to 1547. Ivan was succeeded by his son Feodor, whose repeated failures led Russia into a “Time of Troubles.” In 1613, the first of a long line of Romanov czars, Mikhail Romanov, took the throne. Under Romanov rule, serfs lost almost all of their freedoms. Peter the Great, another Romanov who ruled Russia from 1682 to 1696, instituted sweeping reforms in Russian government and society. He built St. Petersburg and tried to make European traditions a part of Russia. In the Great Northern War against Sweden, new territories were gained. Other absolutist rulers arose, such as the Hapsburg Empress Maria Theresa in Austria, and the Hohenzollern Frederick the Great from Prussia. These two rulers clashed in the War of the Austrian Succession, in which Frederick won the territory Silesia.

Europeans during this era desired a “balance of power” that would prevent any single nation from becoming most powerful. The expression of this idea was seen in the intense competition and warfare between the various European nations for control in Europe, especially with the Thirty Years’ War. The war initially began as a religious conflict in Germany between Bohemian Protestants and Hapsburg Catholics in 1618. However, it soon became a political conflict for power that involved Spain, Holland, Denmark, France, Switzerland and The Holy Roman Empire. The Treaty of Westphalia finally marked the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648. The war significantly weakened Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, as well as Austria and Spain. Although France was largely a Catholic country, it had chosen the side of the winning Protestants in order to oppose the Holy Roman Empire, and France emerged strengthened and more unified as a result.

==The Scientific Revolution==

A remarkable Polish scientist named [[Nicolaus Copernicus]] (1473-1543) made a stunning claim that rocked the religious and scientific world: he asserted that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe. All this is suggested by the systematic procession of events and the harmony of the whole Universe, if only we face the facts, as they say, ‘with both eyes open.’” With this bold declaration, Copernicus began the “Scientific Revolution,” which rejected geocentric (earth-centered) theory of the universe dating back over a thousand years to Ptolemy.

Copernicus worked for years on his book describing his theory, and did not publish it until near the very end of his life. He entitled it, “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” (“On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres”), and published it in 1543. The work was far from perfect: Copernicus assumed that the planets moved in circular revolutions (they actually revolve in ellipses, though the orbit of the earth is nearly circular), and Copernicus also thought that the sun stood motionless as some kind of stationery temple in the universe.

The reception to his work was initially positive within the Catholic Church, which Copernicus served, but Protestants who it conflicted with some literal interpretations of the Bible, such as the account of how Joshua benefited from the sun standing still as it passed over the earth. “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua 10:13. There were few Protestants in Poland then (or now), and thus Copernicus died without much controversy.

[[Johannes Kepler]] (1571-1630), a Protestant in Germany, built on Copernicus’s work and discovered that planets orbited the sun in ellipses rather than circular orbits. Kepler was a brilliant mathematician, astronomer and devout Christian who cited God many times in all of his writings. He felt it was his Christian duty to understand the creation of God, the universe. He also felt that man, being in the image of God, was fully capable of understanding the universe. Like Plato and Pythagoras, Kepler felt that God must have created the universe according to a mathematical plan.

[[Galileo]] (1564-1642) was a contemporary of Kepler who lived in Catholic Italy. Galileo was not as bright as Kepler or Copernicus, and was a bit of an entertaining showman who made a lively party guest. He taught geometry to medical students so that they could use astronomy and astrology in the practice of medicine. Galileo’s primary scientific contribution was his improvement on the telescope in order to view celestial bodies.

But by this time the Catholic Church was in a deadly struggle with Protestantism, which was critical of Copernicus’s theory of the earth revolving around the sun. Wars were being fought and soldiers were dying over religious differences. In 1616, the Catholic Church officially prohibited teaching Copernicus’s theory as fact, although there was no objection to learning it as a mathematical theory. Galileo, however, felt Copernicus was correct and wanted to teach his theory. He had met with Pope Urban VIII on numerous occasions and felt that the Church would not object to Galileo’s publishing the Copernican theory about the universe.

There was no right of free speech in Italy at that time, and in 1632 Galileo published a work called “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican” with the apparent approval of the Catholic Church. Buyers and readers of the book were led to believe that Galileo’s reflected the official views of the Church, when they did not. Galileo had received permission from a local cleric in Florence, but not from Church authorities in Rome, and they felt that Galileo knew that he was prohibited from claiming that the Church supported the Copernican view.

Galileo also angered Church officials in the way that he mocked opponents of the Copernican system. His “dialogue” was between a fictional Salviati, who supported the Copernican system, and an Aristotelian philosopher given the unflattering name “Simplicio”. The simpled-minded “Simplicio” was made to look like the pope himself, and was mocked in the book for his skepticism about the Copernican system.

In the book’s climax, Salviati supposedly proves the Copernican system by citing the movement of the tides. This was completely false and already disproved by Kepler.

Catholic Church officials were furious about this book and the Inquisition banned its sale. Galileo was summoned to Rome. Unlike Luther, Galileo remained a Catholic and fully accepted whatever judgment the Church would render against him. His “trial” was a bit of a farce, probably put on for show more than anything, with Galileo living in plush quarters at all times. At the end of the trial Galileo was required to live in a house where the Church could keep an eye on him, and was not imprisoned. Galileo then continued his scientific work but was kept from embarrassing the Church further. Galileo never split from the Church and completely accepted his punishment.

There were other noteworthy scientists during this era. [[Vesalius]] advanced the understanding of anatomy for medical doctors. [[John Harvey]] explained the circulatory system in human anatomy. [[Rene Descartes]] was a French mathematician and philosopher who discovered [[analytical geometry]] and famously declared, “I think, therefore I am.” [[Francis Bacon]] promoted research based on experimentation.

Then there was Sir [[Isaac Newton]], who after Jesus Christ was perhaps the most influential man who ever lived. If Newton were alive today, then he would be described as a Christian fundamentalist. Everything Newton did was inspired and motivated by his powerful faith in the Word of God in the Bible. Abandoned by his own mother, Newton had an [[inferiority complex]] that drove him to achieve more and more. In one summer he discovered the laws of [[gravity]] and also [[calculus]], and the world has never been the same since.

Like most other men who made great advances in knowledge in world history, Newton discovered and explained something that was unseen: the invisible force of gravity. Newton proposed action-at-a-distance, whereby one object attracts another through an invisible force of gravity. Newton was ridiculed for proposing that something unseen could act at a distance and influence something else millions of miles away from it. Yet Newton was right. Speaking of the world in which live, Newton once said, “Why not try to understand it?” Newton understood it and explained it to the rest of us, and we are forever grateful.

A German contemporary of Newton, Gottfried [[Leibniz]], deserves mention. Like Newton, Leibniz was a devout Christian. In fact, Leibniz was a Lutheran who dreamed of reuniting that denomination with the Catholic Church. Leibniz was also a brilliant mathematician who developed calculus independent of Newton. It was Leibniz, not Newton, who first published the notation for the integral: f(x) dx. An ugly dispute developed between Newton and Leibniz over who discovered calculus first. Most English-speaking historians give the credit to Newton but bias may play a role in that. The world certainly benefited immensely from Leibniz as well as Newton.

==The Enlightenment==

The “Enlightenment” was a philosophical movement in the 1700s that emphasized an intellectual approach rejecting traditional social, political and (sometimes) religious views. Philosophers in the Enlightenment felt that breakthroughs in science, such as Isaac Newton’s discoveries, could be duplicated in other fields through a systematic and logical approach. However, Newton’s breakthroughs were inspired by his Christian faith, while some of the Enlightenment thinkers rejected and even criticized Christianity. There were Enlightenment philosophers in England, France and even the American colonies. There were stunning new works in classical music, and the arts flourished in what is known as the neo-classical period.

Note how the term “Enlightenment” is biased and self-serving. It makes it appear that people became enlightened compared to their ignorant ancestors. In fact, the achievements of the so-called “Enlightenment” movement were not any greater than other movements and periods in history, and there are valid criticisms of certain aspects of the Enlightenment.

Frenchman Voltaire (1694-1778) was a leading philosopher in the Enlightenment, advocating freedom everywhere and emphasizing his form of reason. He wrote “The Candide,” in which Voltaire described many bad things that happen to Candide in order to make the point that the world could be a better place. Increased freedom was Voltaire’s way of improving things. His ideas later formed the basis of French Revolution, when many innocent people (including the French royalty and much of the aristocracy) were murdered and churches destroyed amid a reign of terror.

Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) was the leading political philosopher, whose ideas helped the American colonists form a new government. Locke described society as a contract between an individual and society. This was a radical concept at a time when monarchs and the divine right of kings was the controlling theory. Locke’s view helped lay the foundation for the constitutional government that we use in the United States. Locke had built on the prior work of Englishmen Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.

Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was the leading legal authority on English law, upon which much American law is based. Law students in America hear about him frequently in law school. In “The Rights of Englishmen,” Blackstone described the source of the rights of the people.

Frenchman Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) proposed the concept of separation of powers, and checks and balances, in government. This inspired the United States Constitution. His book, “The Spirit of the Laws,” explained essential aspects of good government that became enormously influential.

Another Frenchman, Denis Diderot (1713-1784), contributed to literature, speculated on free will and attachment to material things, and edited an encyclopedia of scientific and social knowledge known as “Encyclopedia”.

Swiss-born political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) wrote several controversial works. He felt that politics and morality could not be separated, and that the will of the majority was not always correct. Many Americans today would agree with that view. However, Rousseau also attacked private property, and laid the groundwork for future communist writers such as Karl Marx. Rousseau declared that government’s goal should be to provide freedom, equality and justice. But note that freedom often results in inequality.

Irishman Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was in the British parliament when the conflict with the American colonies occurred, and he sided with the colonies, making him a hero to many in America. He is also considered to the world’s first political conservative, and many conservatives today praise him for that reason. His works included “Inquiries into the Sublime and Beautiful” (defending the American colonies and examining how people interpret what they see) and “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (warning how bad the French Revolution was because a few would gain control and abuse their power, even while everyone else praised that Revolution). What was striking about Burke was that he was almost always right in his political assessments and predictions.

The Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776) was a philosopher and historian who promoted materialism and naturalism rather than spirituality. He was a “skeptic” towards religion, and he penned “A Treatise on Human Nature.” He quipped, “You can tell what is inside a person’s soul by what comes out if it.” Hume is considered the greatest philosopher to write in English, but that is only because there were so few good English philosophers. Hume has been criticized for his atheistic approach and his chief claim to fame is that Charles Darwin declared Hume to have been his central influence, as did “Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley. Hume believed in relativism rather than absolute truth, and that not even what God creates has absolute beauty: “Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them,” Hume declared.<ref>David Hume’s ''Essays, Moral and Political'' (1742).</ref>

The German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the most famous philosophers ever. In his “A Critique of Pure Reason,” Kant criticizes pure reason as a guide to life. Kant may not have been a Christian himself, but he considered Christian values to be the best values in the world. Kant also established a systematic basis for critical philosophy and suggested a material origin for the solar system. Kant’s own suggestion for a moral daily life was this: don’t do something which, if everyone did it, then the outcome would be bad. Expressed another way, an act is moral only if it works as a rule for everyone. For example, littering would be wrong because if everyone did it, then there would be an ugly mess. Kant is taught in all college philosophy departments to this day, though not for praising Christianity!

Finally, let’s recognize American contributions during the Enlightenment. The greatest works in government were created by the Founding Fathers. These works include the Declaration of Independence (1776) with its statement of inalienable rights and a right to break the social contract with a ruler when he (the king) violates natural rights. The United States Constitution (1787) gave the world a masterful design for government. The Federalist Papers (1788), and particularly articles by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (most notably No. 10) were also significant.

==Capitalism==

Just as Isaac Newton’s discovery and explanation of the unseen force of gravity was a brilliant insight in science, Adam Smith of Scotland discovered a powerful unseen force in economics known as the “invisible hand.” If government allows free enterprise to flourish on its own, without interference by government, then an “invisible hand” harnesses the power of self-interest for the overall good of society. Companies are guided by this “invisible hand” to work in a way that is beneficial to others, and the overall wealth and progress of society will increase. This is what Adam Smith wrote in the influential ''The Wealth of Nations'', published in the same year as the Declaration of Independence in America: 1776. Adam Smith’s book is still considered the world’s greatest economics masterpiece. He explained how the basis of wealth is found in a free economy with an unregulated exchange of goods, whereby the supply of goods and services responds in an efficient way to the demand of the public without government intervention. Smith advocated the concept of laissez faire, which means “allow to do” or, more simply, “hands off” by government. Ironically, homeschooling in New Jersey (and a few other states) is an activity that most resembles Adam Smith’s ideal of an unregulated market. Let’s defend this lack of regulation of homeschooling while we can!

“Capitalism” became the prevailing economic theory in Britain as a result of the insights of Adam Smith and others. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines capitalism as follows: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” Britain quickly became the largest and greatest empire in the history of the world as a result of its adherence to this superior economic system. The British empire was larger than even the Mongol empire, except that the British empire was not "contiguous" on land, but included faraway places like Australia.

A related economic theory known as “mercantilism” also became popular. Mercantilism was a policy for a nation (such as Britain) to increase its own national wealth based on trade with other nations and territories. Under mercantilism, a nation should accumulate gold by exporting more goods than it imported, and by using colonies (such as the English colonies in America) to ship raw materials to the mother country that could be manufactured and exported to other peoples. Another key component of mercantilism was establishing foreign trading monopolies that would have unfair advantages over competitors in other countries. One such British monopoly was the East Indian Tea Company, and its unfair business advantage caused the colonists in Boston to revolt in the form of the Boston Tea Party.

While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was positive in almost every way, mercantilism did have a dark side of exploitation of colonies for the benefit of the mother country.

Adam Smith did not invent capitalism, but gave it a powerful intellectual justification. In 1607 -- over 150 years before Adam Smith -- capitalism had already played a prominent role in the first settlement of North America at Jamestown, which was funded by a joint-stock company (a privately owned company having a structure similar to the corporations of today). Joint-stock companies or corporations were (and are) a form of capitalism; decisions are made privately by those acting on behalf of the owners, without any direct control by government.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture 08}}

World History Lecture Eight

2009-03-17T18:30:56Z

ETrundel: /* Capitalism */ 'loan' to 'land'?

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

Our midterm exam will be next week. It will be multiple-choice, perhaps 30 minutes in length, and will cover lectures one through eight (including this one). Items and topic mentioned on the homework will be given greater priority in designing the questions.

Remember and use the following test-taking tips for multiple-choice exams. You can improve your scores enormously by following and mastering these tips.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. You want an answer that fits the question best, like a key fitting a lock.

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one. This can bump your score up another point or two.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. Don't give up too easily on figuring out a question.

'''Avoid Broad Language in Answers''': Broad or sweeping terms like "only", "never", "solely", "everyone", "always", "purely", "all" and "every" are often signs of '''incorrect''' answers because they are rarely true.

Test-taking on multiple-choice exams is a skill that can be mastered with practice, determination and cleverness.

== Introduction ==

This lecture will be briefer than usual, with no homework questions, in order to give you time to prepare.

On September 11, 1683, Muslims made a second major attempt to conquer Europe (recall that Charles the Hammer turned back their first attempt). A massive Islamic army arrived at the Gates of Vienna. An alliance of Christian armies, led by the Polish King Jan III Sobieski, defeated the Muslim force.<ref>http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/other-september-11th.html</ref> Some have observed that "9/11" was an anniversary of this day.

Two other momentous events happened in the 1600s which would also affect the world forever. In 1607, Englishmen established a permanent settlement at Jamestown, Virginia. In 1611, the King James Bible was published with this introduction:<ref name="KJV">http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html</ref>

:THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.

Some might say that the publication of the King James Bible was more significant than the settlement at Jamestown. This version of the Bible, which became known as the "Authorized Version," was a spectacular work that transformed and elevated the entire English language to new heights. Even a Catholic scholar expressed the highest praise for this work, which was shared by all:<ref name="KJV"/>

:The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.

To this day many feel that the King James Bible is the finest English translation available, despite the antiquity of some of its terminology. It is free from modern translations that hide the existence and wrath of Hell, for example. But for the purposes of course, we are interested in how this was a defining moment in the development of the English language, and how the language has grown since then.

The King James Bible established a framework of knowledge of the English language, and it began to develop rapidly afterward. English is unique in its ability to develop new words, at a rate of about 1000 new words per year.<ref>See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]].</ref> This enables English to constantly improve its ability to express concepts. English easily incorporates and adapts words from other languages, such as "detente" (French for a lessening in tensions between nations) and "tsunami" (Japanese for a massive tidal wave).

English has the smallest alphabet of widely used languages;<ref>Some describe the Hebrew alphabet, without vowels, has having only 22 characters, but modern Hebrew (spoken by a few million people) has more characters than English. See http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hebrew.htm . The obscure [[Elder Futhark]] runic writing has an alphabet of 24.</ref> this compact simplicity gives English an advantage, particularly in using computers. For example, English lacks accented (letters bearing a diacritic mark such as the "e" in "noël"), hybrid (such as the digraph ligature æ often used in British English in words such as encyclopædia or the ampersand character - a contraction of "et"), and pictograph characters.

It helps that English uses a writing system that has some relation between sounds and symbols as opposed to a purely ideographic system. This also applies to all other languages using alphabets, abjads, syllabaries, and so on - such as ancient Greek and Latin (though English developed from German, not from Greek or Latin).

English features easy interchangeability of nouns, verbs, and adjectives, without much variance in form for pronouns and verbs. That promotes easy communication through brief, cryptic messages, the style preferred by electronic media. English enjoys a powerful pipe-like quality, such that one phrase can be cut and pasted to another phrase with ease. Computer-based cutting and pasting text works more efficiently in English than in many other languages, such as those using pictorial characters. This gives English an advantage in the internet medium, and about 80% of the internet uses English. English is now the second most widely spoken language in the world, with only Chinese dialects spoken by more people. English is overwhelmingly the second language of choice for non-English-speaking people.<ref>See Barbara Wallraff, “What Global Language?” 286 Atlantic Monthly No. 5, at 52 (Nov. 2000) (noting, inter alia, that “English is the working language of the Asian trade group ASEAN” and is also “the official language of the European Central Bank”).</ref>

==The Age of Exploration==

The “Age of Exploration” consisted of Christians from Europe searching the rest of our globe to spread the faith and seek wealth, particularly between 1450 and 1650. This began the “Global Age” in world history, which continues to this day.

As Europe was emerging from the Middle Ages and experiencing the Renaissance, people had the curiosity and the courage to look beyond their own continent to others. Scientific discoveries and technological improvements made it easier to travel across the vast oceans. Christians sought to spread their faith far and wide, and merchants sought new goods and business opportunities in both the East and West. North and South America awaited visits by the Europeans.

The Portuguese were the first great explorers. They developed the “caravel”, a small, lightweight ship with three lateen-sailed masts that could hold much more cargo than previous ships. The more cargo that a ship could hold, the greater its profits would be, as cargo consisted of goods that could be picked up in a faraway land and sold upon the ship’s return to its homeland. European demand was strong for exotic Indian goods, especially spices, and this drove explorers to discover new routes to India different from the Eastern Mediterranean trade controlled by the Ottomans.

The discovery of new western routes accidentally led to the discovery of lands in the New World (Western Hemisphere). Portugal and Spain then emerged as the two major players in what was to become an intense European competition for exploration, conversion and colonization.

===Portuguese Exploration===

The Portuguese initiated the age of exploration in Europe as early as about 1419, when Prince Henry the Navigator established his School of Navigation and made it his life’s work to explore the West African coast and reach the Indian Ocean. His ships reached as far as Sierra Leone, but he failed to reach India. Another explorer named Bartholomew Diaz likewise failed to reach India, but he did manage to sail around the tip of Africa (the Cape of Good Hope) in 1487 and thereby establish the route to India.

In 1492, with funding from Spain (see below), Christopher Columbus embarked on his famous voyage with the dream of reaching India, and he failed in that goal also. It was Vasco da Gama who finally reached India by sailing eastward around Africa and up the East African coast between 1497 and 1499, with the help of the powerful monsoon winds. Shortly thereafter, regular trade was established with India under the Portuguese King Manuel, and conflict began with the Muslims over dominance of Indian Ocean trade.

Later, with funding and men from Spain (see below), the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan became the first to lead an expedition around the globe.

===Spanish Exploration===

The Spanish entered the scene in the year 1492—during the reign of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who were working hard to defeat Islam and establish Christianity as the only religion in Spain. Known as the “Reconquista” (or Reconquest) of Spain, this was accomplished first through the reconquest of Granada, the last Muslim city in Spain. As explained in the prior Lecture, Queen Isabella ordered all Muslims and Jewish residents to convert or leave Spain. Initially, this caused Spain an economic and academic setback, as Jewish residents had comprised a large number of scholars and merchants.

It was during this time that a young Italian by the name of Christopher Columbus first approached the Portuguese King John II to ask him for financial support. Columbus, like many from the Italian city of Genoa, was an expert mariner, having started as early as the age of 14. He had studied the works of Ptolemy on his own; Columbus did not attend formal school, just as homeschoolers do not today. Columbus at all times was a devout Christian, writing frequently about his faith in his diary. His desire to sail to India was motivated in large part by his attempt to spread the Christian faith. He repeatedly cited a desire to convert pagans to Christianity when he sought support for his voyage. Late in life, even when treated as a prisoner, he sought to devote all his money and efforts towards winning back Jesus Christ’s Holy Sepulchre (burial cave) from Muslims in the Holy Land.

King John II denied Columbus’s request to fund his voyage across the Atlantic. Indeed, Columbus was ridiculed for seeking to reach India by sailing west rather than east.

The funding for Columbus came from Spain instead. Though Columbus was Italian, it was Spain who financed his voyages as the strain of fighting the Muslims subsided. Isabella and Ferdinand felt secure in granting the Genoese upstart Christopher Columbus his long-awaited funds. Beginning on August 3, 1492, Columbus embarked on four voyages, perhaps becoming the first European to discover the New World, although at first he believed he had reached India (hence his name for the inhabitants of the New World: “Indians”). The discoveries by Columbus included the Bahamas, Cuba, Haiti, San Salvador, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad and Honduras. Columbus’ astounding success presented an increasing challenge to Spain’s Portuguese rivals.

The pope finally resolved this rivalry between Spain and Portugal in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which established an 1100-mile long “Line of Demarcation.” This division of world territories gave Portugal trading rights in India, China, the East Indies, East Brazil and Spanish Americas. Spain was given control of the remaining, vast majority of the Americas. Ferdinand Magellan then led the first successful voyage to circumnavigate the globe in 1519. Although Magellan was killed by Philippine natives before completing the last leg of the journey, he was the first to sail around Cape Horn at the tip of South America to enter the Pacific Ocean. Only 18 of approximately 250 sailors made it back to Spain three years later, in 1522.

As a result of Magellan’s journey, Spain gained control of many South American territories, including Mexico and Peru. Spain also obtained control over the Philippines in the Far East. Spanish warrior Hernando Cortes led the conquest of Mexico, with the initial help of the Aztecs, many of whom believed Cortes was their god Quetzalcoatl (who, conveniently for the Spanish, was expected to appear that very year). Cortes captured the Aztec ruler Moctezuma (popularly known as “Montezuma”) and conquered their empire. Cortes was also aided by an Aztec woman named Malinche, who served as a guide and translator. Cortes burned the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan and built Mexico City in its place.

Francisco Pizzaro led the conquest of Peru, betraying and eventually killing their emperor, Atahualpa. The ancient Peru city of Cuzco was completely destroyed and replaced with the city of Lima. While in Peru, Pizzaro also discovered the greatest silver mine in the Americas, the vast majority of which was traded with China, whose economy was based on silver. Both Cortes’ and Pizzaro’s conquests were facilitated by the use of horses, superior weapons, and devastating European diseases like smallpox. The native population had no immunity to such disease, and simply giving them a bunch of blankets exposed to the deadly germ could end up killing many natives.

Using the Spanish system of “encomiendas”, many of the South American natives became slaves to their Spanish conquerors. A Dominican monk and missionary, [[Bartholomew de Las Casas]], sent sensational descriptions to the Spanish government of the supposed atrocities committed against the “patient, meek and peaceful” natives by the Spanish conquistadors, whom he described as “cruel tigers, wolves and lions.” Although some of what Las Casas said was true, historical research has proved most of it to be false and exaggerated. However dishonest his methods may have been, Las Casas’ reports eventually led to the king of Spain issuing “New Laws,” by which exploitation of the natives was ended by the replacement of the old “encomiendas” with the new “repartimientos”. Both systems are criticized as unfair today. The system of “encomiendas” was based on royal grants of land, while the system of “repartimientos” was based on gifts of Indian labor. Either way, the Indians ended up working for the Spanish.

===Exploration by Other Nations===

Other European nations participated in exploration as well. King Henry VII of England sent John Cabot, a resident of London born in Genoa (like Columbus), to explore across the Northern Atlantic Ocean. Cabot discovered Newfoundland and the New England coast in 1497 and 1498, respectively, and the land became the property of England. From France, Jacques Cartier discovered Canada and the Mississippi Basin, including Louisiana in 1534 and 1541. These colonies were initially less significant than those in South America, and there was a lack of initial interest in North America because it did not have the gold and silver of South America. Whereas intermarriage and cultural blending occurred heavily among the Spanish and the Indians in South America, it barely existed between the English or French and the Indians in North America.

Of course, eventually the interest and development in North America increased and surpassed that of South America. Commercial competition between European nations in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)—a conflict brought to America in the form of the French and Indian War. This War marked the end of French (and Spanish) influence in North America, and signaled the rise of Britain as the primary world superpower for the next 150 years.

===The Slave Trade===

In what is known as the “Columbian Exchange,” plants and animals were brought from America to Europe and vice-versa. Columbus brought from Europe to America wheat, melons, onions, grapes, sugar cane and horses. Horses proved to be influential not only in the European conquest of native peoples but also in the natives’ abilities to avoid white settlers, particularly among the Plains Indians in North America.

America had new fruits and vegetables that were then exported to Europe and Africa. America introduced the white potato to Europe and the manioc or cassava to Africa. Chili peppers, pumpkins, squash and peanuts were also brought back from America and became popular in countries such as India. These new foods helped increase population, and in Africa the population growth almost cancelled out population losses caused by the slave trade.

Slaves became a major part of the Columbian Exchange. In 1455, a “papal bull” (formal letter by the pope) justified a “right” of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The Spanish had already been enslaving South American natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of African slaves were brought by the Spanish and Portuguese to Mexico, Peru, the Caribbean and especially Brazil. The growth of sugar—which had first been introduced to Europe when the Muslims ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

[[Slavery]] was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of “chattel” slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the “Triangular Trade” between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the “triangle” of trade.

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, and in South America it was finally ended in Brazil in 1888.

===China’s Role in the Age of Exploration===

In the East, under the Ming dynasty, Emperor Yongle sent a band of explorers led by “Zheng He” throughout parts of southern Asia, Persia, Arabia and Africa. The crew of over 28,000 men embarked on seven naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean from 1405 to 1423 and as a result, trade with East Africa began. However, by the 1430s, Mongol raids caused the Chinese to withdraw from exploration for the time being, and instead spend their time and money on defenses such as repairing the Great Wall.

The Ming dynasty thereby retreated from the world stage, mostly in order to strengthen Chinese defenses against Mongol threats. Beijing became the capital of China, and eventually the Ming rulers began to retreat even more completely from the outside world, living in an elaborate Beijing palace known as the “Forbidden City.” When a devastating famine occurred in China, the rulers were living extravagantly in their secluded palace and cared little for the plight of the peasants. The people of China revolted, and in 1644, the Ming Dynasty was replaced with the Qing, made up of the Manchu peoples.

Under the Qing dynasty, marriage between members of the Chinese and Manchurians was forbidden, and the official spoken language remained Chinese. Female infanticide occurred, as well as the practice of binding the feet of rich girls and, increasingly, middle class girls also. The primary philosophy was Neo-Confucianism, a mixture of Buddhism and traditional Confucianism. Jesuits attempted to evangelize China, but were not very successful. Nevertheless, a Jesuit presence in China contributed to the exchange of ideas and technology between the East and the West.

China did not withdraw completely from world trade during the Ming and Qing dynasties. China continued to trade with the Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Dutch, mainly for silver, which had become the Chinese currency, and with the Russians for furs. Under the Ming dynasty, beautiful blue and white porcelain was produced and exported. The influence of the Ming vase spread throughout the Muslim and Christian worlds, as seen in Holland through the production of Delft pottery and in England, Wedgwood China. Other Chinese exports included silk and tea, and imports consisted of spices, textiles and animal skins from Europe. Maize, sweet potatoes and peanuts were brought over from the Americas and became popular crops in China.

==Growth of Nation-States and Monarchs==

The development of European nation-states continued throughout the Renaissance and Age of Exploration. In the 1400s and 1500s, the most powerful nation-states were England, France and Spain. The Holy Roman Empire, which consisted of parts of Italy and Germany, was a powerful but declining force. Enemies that weakened the Holy Roman Empire included the Ottomans and French enemies, who resisted its expansion. The fact that the cultures of Germany and Italy were very different also contributed to the downfall of the Holy Roman Empire, as did the Reformation.

The European nation-states grew in power by strengthening their central authority. They increased bureaucracy, the size of their armies and the amounts of their taxation. The rise of absolutist rulers contributed to the centralization of France, Spain, Austria, Russia and Prussia. The nature of an absolute monarch was expressed well in this famous quote attributed to Louis XIV (1527-1598), “L’etat c’est moi!” (I am the state). Absolute monarchs controlled all aspects of government and society including the church, the bureaucracy and the military. Absolute monarchs claimed “divine right” to rule, stating that they had been appointed by God himself and were therefore responsible to God alone. They enjoyed “sovereign immunity” under the view that “the king can do no wrong,” a principle that continues to exist in English and American law today (unless government “waives” its immunity with a law granting certain rights to sue it).

Religious conflict in England between Catholics and Anglicans caused absolutism to fail there. The “Glorious Revolution” (so named by supporters of the Church of England) brought down the Catholic King James II and the idea of divine right along with him, placing William and Mary on the throne in 1688. In France, however, absolutism triumphed until the French Revolution, especially with the reign of Louis XIV, the leading absolute monarch in Europe. The French court at Versailles during the reign of Louis XIV, who called himself the “Sun King,” was considered rich in culture and an example to other societies. Truth be told, it was also extravagant and immoral.

In Spain, Philip II (1638-1715), who was the great-grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand, worked to cleanse Spanish territories of all religions but Catholicism, and viewed Elizabeth I of England as his main rival. But his mighty Spanish Armada was defeated by a quicker English fleet in 1588. In 1579, William of Orange led the Netherlands in a revolt against their Spanish masters. These two losses contributed to the weakening of Spanish power.

Meanwhile, artistic pursuits flourished during this period in Spain. El Greco (1541-1614), a painter, architect and sculptor best known for his paintings of saints and martyrs, and drew a stunning of a storm over a Spanish town (“A View of Toledo”). Diego Velázquez painted portraits of the royal family and scenes from daily life at court. In 1605 Miguel de Cervantes wrote the novel Don Quixote, probably the most influential piece of Spanish literature, and Lope de Vega wrote an estimated 2,000 plays.

In Russia, absolute emperors known as “czars” arose. The first czar of Russia was Ivan IV “the Terrible,” who executed many innocent people during his fearful reign from 1533 to 1547. Ivan was succeeded by his son Feodor, whose repeated failures led Russia into a “Time of Troubles.” In 1613, the first of a long line of Romanov czars, Mikhail Romanov, took the throne. Under Romanov rule, serfs lost almost all of their freedoms. Peter the Great, another Romanov who ruled Russia from 1682 to 1696, instituted sweeping reforms in Russian government and society. He built St. Petersburg and tried to make European traditions a part of Russia. In the Great Northern War against Sweden, new territories were gained. Other absolutist rulers arose, such as the Hapsburg Empress Maria Theresa in Austria, and the Hohenzollern Frederick the Great from Prussia. These two rulers clashed in the War of the Austrian Succession, in which Frederick won the territory Silesia.

Europeans during this era desired a “balance of power” that would prevent any single nation from becoming most powerful. The expression of this idea was seen in the intense competition and warfare between the various European nations for control in Europe, especially with the Thirty Years’ War. The war initially began as a religious conflict in Germany between Bohemian Protestants and Hapsburg Catholics in 1618. However, it soon became a political conflict for power that involved Spain, Holland, Denmark, France, Switzerland and The Holy Roman Empire. The Treaty of Westphalia finally marked the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648. The war significantly weakened Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, as well as Austria and Spain. Although France was largely a Catholic country, it had chosen the side of the winning Protestants in order to oppose the Holy Roman Empire, and France emerged strengthened and more unified as a result.

==The Scientific Revolution==

A remarkable Polish scientist named [[Nicolaus Copernicus]] (1473-1543) made a stunning claim that rocked the religious and scientific world: he asserted that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe. All this is suggested by the systematic procession of events and the harmony of the whole Universe, if only we face the facts, as they say, ‘with both eyes open.’” With that bold declaration, this respected scientist in the Catholic Church began the “Scientific Revolution,” which rejected geocentric (earth-centered) theory of the universe dating back over a thousand years to Ptolemy.

Copernicus worked for years on his book describing his theory, and did not publish it until near the very end of his life. He entitled it, “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” (“On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres”), and published it in 1543. The work was far from perfect: Copernicus assumed that the planets moved in circular revolutions (they actually revolve in ellipses, though the orbit of the earth is nearly circular), and Copernicus also thought that the sun stood motionless as some kind of stationery temple in the universe.

The reception to his work was initially positive within the Catholic Church, but negative among Protestants who felt it conflicted with some literal interpretations of the Bible, such as the account of how Joshua benefited from the sun standing still as it passed over the earth. “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua 10:13. But there were few Protestants in Poland then (or now), and Copernicus died without much controversy.

[[Johannes Kepler]] (1571-1630), a Protestant in Germany, built on Copernicus’s work and discovered that planets orbited the sun in ellipses rather than circular orbits. Kepler was a brilliant mathematician, astronomer and devout Christian who cited God many times in all of his writings. He felt it was his Christian duty to understand the creation of God, the universe. He also felt that man, being in the image of God, was fully capable of understanding the universe. Like Plato and Pythagoras, Kepler felt that God must have created the universe according to a mathematical plan.

[[Galileo]] (1564-1642) was a contemporary of Kepler who lived in Catholic Italy. Galileo was not as bright as Kepler or Copernicus, and was a bit of an entertaining showman who made a lively party guest. He taught geometry to medical students so that they could use astronomy and astrology in the practice of medicine. Galileo’s primary scientific contribution was his improvement on the telescope in order to view celestial bodies.

But the Catholic Church was then in a struggle with Protestantism, which was critical of Copernicus’s theory of the earth revolving around the sun. In 1616, the Catholic Church officially prohibited teaching Copernicus’s theory as fact, although there was no objection to learning it as a mathematical theory. Galileo, however, felt Copernicus was correct and wanted to teach his theory. He had met with Pope Urban VIII on numerous occasions and felt that the Church would not object to Galileo’s publishing the Copernican theory about the universe.

There was no right of free speech in Italy at that time, and in 1632 Galileo published a work called “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican” with the apparent approval of the Catholic Church. Buyers and readers of the book were led to believe that Galileo’s reflected the official views of the Church, when they did not. Galileo had received permission from a local cleric in Florence, but not from Church authorities in Rome, and they felt that Galileo knew that he was prohibited from claiming that the Church supported the Copernican view.

Galileo also angered Church officials in the way that he mocked opponents of the Copernican system. His “dialogue” was between a fictional Salviati, who supported the Copernican system, and an Aristotelian philosopher given the unflattering name “Simplicio”. The simpled-minded “Simplicio” was made to look like the pope himself, and was mocked in the book for his skepticism about the Copernican system.

In the book’s climax, Salviati supposedly proves the Copernican system by citing the movement of the tides. This was completely false and already disproved by Kepler.

Catholic Church officials were furious about this book and the Inquisition banned its sale. Galileo was summoned to Rome. Unlike Luther, Galileo remained a Catholic and fully accepted whatever judgment the Church would render against him. His “trial” was a bit of a farce, probably put on for show more than anything, with Galileo living in plush quarters at all times. At the end of the trial Galileo was required to live in a house where the Church could keep an eye on him, and was not imprisoned. Galileo then continued his scientific work but was kept from embarrassing the Church further. Galileo never split from the Church and completely accepted his punishment.

There were other noteworthy scientists during this era. [[Vesalius]] advanced the understanding of anatomy for medical doctors. [[John Harvey]] explained the circulatory system in human anatomy. [[Rene Descartes]] was a French mathematician and philosopher who discovered [[analytical geometry]] and famously declared, “I think, therefore I am.” [[Francis Bacon]] promoted research based on experimentation.

Then there was Sir [[Isaac Newton]], who after Jesus Christ was perhaps the most influential man who ever lived. If Newton were alive today, then he would be described as a Christian fundamentalist. Everything Newton did was inspired and motivated by his powerful faith in the Word of God in the Bible. Abandoned by his own mother, Newton had an [[inferiority complex]] that drove him to achieve more and more. In one summer he discovered the laws of [[gravity]] and also [[calculus]], and the world has never been the same since.

Like most other men who made great advances in knowledge in world history, Newton discovered and explained something that was unseen: the invisible force of gravity. Newton proposed action-at-a-distance, whereby one object attracts another through an invisible force of gravity. Newton was ridiculed for proposing that something unseen could act at a distance and influence something else millions of miles away from it. Yet Newton was right. Speaking of the world in which live, Newton once said, “Why not try to understand it?” Newton understood it and explained it to the rest of us, and we are forever grateful.

A German contemporary of Newton, Gottfried [[Leibniz]], deserves mention. Like Newton, Leibniz was a devout Christian. In fact, Leibniz was a Lutheran who dreamed of reuniting that denomination with the Catholic Church. Leibniz was also a brilliant mathematician who developed calculus independent of Newton. It was Leibniz, not Newton, who first published the notation for the integral: f(x) dx. An ugly dispute developed between Newton and Leibniz over who discovered calculus first. Most English-speaking historians give the credit to Newton but bias may play a role in that. The world certainly benefited immensely from Leibniz as well as Newton.

==The Enlightenment==

The “Enlightenment” was a philosophical movement in the 1700s that emphasized an intellectual approach rejecting traditional social, political and (sometimes) religious views. Philosophers in the Enlightenment felt that breakthroughs in science, such as Isaac Newton’s discoveries, could be duplicated in other fields through a systematic and logical approach. However, Newton’s breakthroughs were inspired by his Christian faith, while some of the Enlightenment thinkers rejected and even criticized Christianity. There were Enlightenment philosophers in England, France and even the American colonies. There were stunning new works in classical music, and the arts flourished in what is known as the neo-classical period.

Note how the term “Enlightenment” is biased and self-serving. It makes it appear that people became enlightened compared to their ignorant ancestors. In fact, the achievements of the so-called “Enlightenment” movement were not any greater than other movements and periods in history, and there are valid criticisms of certain aspects of the Enlightenment.

Frenchman Voltaire (1694-1778) was a leading philosopher in the Enlightenment, advocating freedom everywhere and emphasizing his form of reason. He wrote “The Candide,” in which Voltaire described many bad things that happen to Candide in order to make the point that the world could be a better place. Increased freedom was Voltaire’s way of improving things. His ideas later formed the basis of French Revolution, when many innocent people (including the French royalty and much of the aristocracy) were murdered and churches destroyed amid a reign of terror.

Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) was the leading political philosopher, whose ideas helped the American colonists form a new government. Locke described society as a contract between an individual and society. This was a radical concept at a time when monarchs and the divine right of kings was the controlling theory. Locke’s view helped lay the foundation for the constitutional government that we use in the United States. Locke had built on the prior work of Englishmen Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.

Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was the leading legal authority on English law, upon which much American law is based. Law students in America hear about him frequently in law school. In “The Rights of Englishmen,” Blackstone described the source of the rights of the people.

Frenchman Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) proposed the concept of separation of powers, and checks and balances, in government. This inspired the United States Constitution. His book, “The Spirit of the Laws,” explained essential aspects of good government that became enormously influential.

Another Frenchman, Denis Diderot (1713-1784), contributed to literature, speculated on free will and attachment to material things, and edited an encyclopedia of scientific and social knowledge known as “Encyclopedia”.

Swiss-born political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) wrote several controversial works. He felt that politics and morality could not be separated, and that the will of the majority was not always correct. Many Americans today would agree with that view. However, Rousseau also attacked private property, and laid the groundwork for future communist writers such as Karl Marx. Rousseau declared that government’s goal should be to provide freedom, equality and justice. But note that freedom often results in inequality.

Irishman Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was in the British parliament when the conflict with the American colonies occurred, and he sided with the colonies, making him a hero to many in America. He is also considered to the world’s first political conservative, and many conservatives today praise him for that reason. His works included “Inquiries into the Sublime and Beautiful” (defending the American colonies and examining how people interpret what they see) and “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (warning how bad the French Revolution was because a few would gain control and abuse their power, even while everyone else praised that Revolution). What was striking about Burke was that he was almost always right in his political assessments and predictions.

The Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776) was a philosopher and historian who promoted materialism and naturalism rather than spirituality. He was a “skeptic” towards religion, and he penned “A Treatise on Human Nature.” He quipped, “You can tell what is inside a person’s soul by what comes out if it.” Hume is considered the greatest philosopher to write in English, but that is only because there were so few good English philosophers. Hume has been criticized for his atheistic approach and his chief claim to fame is that Charles Darwin declared Hume to have been his central influence, as did “Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley. Hume believed in relativism rather than absolute truth, and that not even what God creates has absolute beauty: “Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them,” Hume declared.<ref>David Hume’s ''Essays, Moral and Political'' (1742).</ref>

The German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the most famous philosophers ever. In his “A Critique of Pure Reason,” Kant criticizes pure reason as a guide to life. Kant may not have been a Christian himself, but he considered Christian values to be the best values in the world. Kant also established a systematic basis for critical philosophy and suggested a material origin for the solar system. Kant’s own suggestion for a moral daily life was this: don’t do something which, if everyone did it, then the outcome would be bad. Expressed another way, an act is moral only if it works as a rule for everyone. For example, littering would be wrong because if everyone did it, then there would be an ugly mess. Kant is taught in all college philosophy departments to this day, though not for praising Christianity!

Finally, let’s recognize American contributions during the Enlightenment. The greatest works in government were created by the Founding Fathers. These works include the Declaration of Independence (1776) with its statement of inalienable rights and a right to break the social contract with a ruler when he (the king) violates natural rights. The United States Constitution (1787) gave the world a masterful design for government. The Federalist Papers (1788), and particularly articles by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (most notably No. 10) were also significant.

==Capitalism==

Just as Isaac Newton’s discovery and explanation of the unseen force of gravity was a brilliant insight in science, Adam Smith of Scotland discovered a powerful unseen force in economics known as the “invisible hand.” If government allows free enterprise to flourish on its own, without interference by government, then an “invisible hand” harnesses the power of self-interest for the overall good of society. Companies are guided by this “invisible hand” to work in a way that is beneficial to others, and the overall wealth and progress of society will increase. This is what Adam Smith wrote in the influential ''The Wealth of Nations'', published in the same year as the Declaration of Independence in America: 1776. Adam Smith’s book is still considered the world’s greatest economics masterpiece. He explained how the basis of wealth is found in a free economy with an unregulated exchange of goods, whereby the supply of goods and services responds in an efficient way to the demand of the public without government intervention. Smith advocated the concept of laissez faire, which means “allow to do” or, more simply, “hands off” by government. Ironically, homeschooling in New Jersey (and a few other states) is an activity that most resembles Adam Smith’s ideal of an unregulated market. Let’s defend this lack of regulation of homeschooling while we can!

“Capitalism” became the prevailing economic theory in Britain as a result of the insights of Adam Smith and others. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines capitalism as follows: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” Britain quickly became the largest and greatest empire in the history of the world as a result of its adherence to this superior economic system. The British empire was larger than even the Mongol empire, except that the British empire was not "contiguous" on land, but included faraway places like Australia.

A related economic theory known as “mercantilism” also became popular. Mercantilism was a policy for a nation (such as Britain) to increase its own national wealth based on trade with other nations and territories. Under mercantilism, a nation should accumulate gold by exporting more goods than it imported, and by using colonies (such as the English colonies in America) to ship raw materials to the mother country that could be manufactured and exported to other peoples. Another key component of mercantilism was establishing foreign trading monopolies that would have unfair advantages over competitors in other countries. One such British monopoly was the East Indian Tea Company, and its unfair business advantage caused the colonists in Boston to revolt in the form of the Boston Tea Party.

While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was positive in almost every way, mercantilism did have a dark side of exploitation of colonies for the benefit of the mother country.

Adam Smith did not invent capitalism, but gave it a powerful intellectual justification. In 1607 -- over 150 years before Adam Smith -- capitalism had already played a prominent role in the first settlement of North America at Jamestown, which was funded by a joint-stock company (a privately owned company having a structure similar to the corporations of today). Joint-stock companies or corporations were (and are) a form of capitalism; decisions are made privately by those acting on behalf of the owners, without any direct control by government.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture 08}}

World History Lecture Eight

2009-03-17T18:29:25Z

ETrundel: /* The Enlightenment */ They didn't guillotine everyone - they drowned, shot, hanged etc.

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

Our midterm exam will be next week. It will be multiple-choice, perhaps 30 minutes in length, and will cover lectures one through eight (including this one). Items and topic mentioned on the homework will be given greater priority in designing the questions.

Remember and use the following test-taking tips for multiple-choice exams. You can improve your scores enormously by following and mastering these tips.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. You want an answer that fits the question best, like a key fitting a lock.

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one. This can bump your score up another point or two.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. Don't give up too easily on figuring out a question.

'''Avoid Broad Language in Answers''': Broad or sweeping terms like "only", "never", "solely", "everyone", "always", "purely", "all" and "every" are often signs of '''incorrect''' answers because they are rarely true.

Test-taking on multiple-choice exams is a skill that can be mastered with practice, determination and cleverness.

== Introduction ==

This lecture will be briefer than usual, with no homework questions, in order to give you time to prepare.

On September 11, 1683, Muslims made a second major attempt to conquer Europe (recall that Charles the Hammer turned back their first attempt). A massive Islamic army arrived at the Gates of Vienna. An alliance of Christian armies, led by the Polish King Jan III Sobieski, defeated the Muslim force.<ref>http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/other-september-11th.html</ref> Some have observed that "9/11" was an anniversary of this day.

Two other momentous events happened in the 1600s which would also affect the world forever. In 1607, Englishmen established a permanent settlement at Jamestown, Virginia. In 1611, the King James Bible was published with this introduction:<ref name="KJV">http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html</ref>

:THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.

Some might say that the publication of the King James Bible was more significant than the settlement at Jamestown. This version of the Bible, which became known as the "Authorized Version," was a spectacular work that transformed and elevated the entire English language to new heights. Even a Catholic scholar expressed the highest praise for this work, which was shared by all:<ref name="KJV"/>

:The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.

To this day many feel that the King James Bible is the finest English translation available, despite the antiquity of some of its terminology. It is free from modern translations that hide the existence and wrath of Hell, for example. But for the purposes of course, we are interested in how this was a defining moment in the development of the English language, and how the language has grown since then.

The King James Bible established a framework of knowledge of the English language, and it began to develop rapidly afterward. English is unique in its ability to develop new words, at a rate of about 1000 new words per year.<ref>See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]].</ref> This enables English to constantly improve its ability to express concepts. English easily incorporates and adapts words from other languages, such as "detente" (French for a lessening in tensions between nations) and "tsunami" (Japanese for a massive tidal wave).

English has the smallest alphabet of widely used languages;<ref>Some describe the Hebrew alphabet, without vowels, has having only 22 characters, but modern Hebrew (spoken by a few million people) has more characters than English. See http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hebrew.htm . The obscure [[Elder Futhark]] runic writing has an alphabet of 24.</ref> this compact simplicity gives English an advantage, particularly in using computers. For example, English lacks accented (letters bearing a diacritic mark such as the "e" in "noël"), hybrid (such as the digraph ligature æ often used in British English in words such as encyclopædia or the ampersand character - a contraction of "et"), and pictograph characters.

It helps that English uses a writing system that has some relation between sounds and symbols as opposed to a purely ideographic system. This also applies to all other languages using alphabets, abjads, syllabaries, and so on - such as ancient Greek and Latin (though English developed from German, not from Greek or Latin).

English features easy interchangeability of nouns, verbs, and adjectives, without much variance in form for pronouns and verbs. That promotes easy communication through brief, cryptic messages, the style preferred by electronic media. English enjoys a powerful pipe-like quality, such that one phrase can be cut and pasted to another phrase with ease. Computer-based cutting and pasting text works more efficiently in English than in many other languages, such as those using pictorial characters. This gives English an advantage in the internet medium, and about 80% of the internet uses English. English is now the second most widely spoken language in the world, with only Chinese dialects spoken by more people. English is overwhelmingly the second language of choice for non-English-speaking people.<ref>See Barbara Wallraff, “What Global Language?” 286 Atlantic Monthly No. 5, at 52 (Nov. 2000) (noting, inter alia, that “English is the working language of the Asian trade group ASEAN” and is also “the official language of the European Central Bank”).</ref>

==The Age of Exploration==

The “Age of Exploration” consisted of Christians from Europe searching the rest of our globe to spread the faith and seek wealth, particularly between 1450 and 1650. This began the “Global Age” in world history, which continues to this day.

As Europe was emerging from the Middle Ages and experiencing the Renaissance, people had the curiosity and the courage to look beyond their own continent to others. Scientific discoveries and technological improvements made it easier to travel across the vast oceans. Christians sought to spread their faith far and wide, and merchants sought new goods and business opportunities in both the East and West. North and South America awaited visits by the Europeans.

The Portuguese were the first great explorers. They developed the “caravel”, a small, lightweight ship with three lateen-sailed masts that could hold much more cargo than previous ships. The more cargo that a ship could hold, the greater its profits would be, as cargo consisted of goods that could be picked up in a faraway land and sold upon the ship’s return to its homeland. European demand was strong for exotic Indian goods, especially spices, and this drove explorers to discover new routes to India different from the Eastern Mediterranean trade controlled by the Ottomans.

The discovery of new western routes accidentally led to the discovery of lands in the New World (Western Hemisphere). Portugal and Spain then emerged as the two major players in what was to become an intense European competition for exploration, conversion and colonization.

===Portuguese Exploration===

The Portuguese initiated the age of exploration in Europe as early as about 1419, when Prince Henry the Navigator established his School of Navigation and made it his life’s work to explore the West African coast and reach the Indian Ocean. His ships reached as far as Sierra Leone, but he failed to reach India. Another explorer named Bartholomew Diaz likewise failed to reach India, but he did manage to sail around the tip of Africa (the Cape of Good Hope) in 1487 and thereby establish the route to India.

In 1492, with funding from Spain (see below), Christopher Columbus embarked on his famous voyage with the dream of reaching India, and he failed in that goal also. It was Vasco da Gama who finally reached India by sailing eastward around Africa and up the East African coast between 1497 and 1499, with the help of the powerful monsoon winds. Shortly thereafter, regular trade was established with India under the Portuguese King Manuel, and conflict began with the Muslims over dominance of Indian Ocean trade.

Later, with funding and men from Spain (see below), the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan became the first to lead an expedition around the globe.

===Spanish Exploration===

The Spanish entered the scene in the year 1492—during the reign of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who were working hard to defeat Islam and establish Christianity as the only religion in Spain. Known as the “Reconquista” (or Reconquest) of Spain, this was accomplished first through the reconquest of Granada, the last Muslim city in Spain. As explained in the prior Lecture, Queen Isabella ordered all Muslims and Jewish residents to convert or leave Spain. Initially, this caused Spain an economic and academic setback, as Jewish residents had comprised a large number of scholars and merchants.

It was during this time that a young Italian by the name of Christopher Columbus first approached the Portuguese King John II to ask him for financial support. Columbus, like many from the Italian city of Genoa, was an expert mariner, having started as early as the age of 14. He had studied the works of Ptolemy on his own; Columbus did not attend formal school, just as homeschoolers do not today. Columbus at all times was a devout Christian, writing frequently about his faith in his diary. His desire to sail to India was motivated in large part by his attempt to spread the Christian faith. He repeatedly cited a desire to convert pagans to Christianity when he sought support for his voyage. Late in life, even when treated as a prisoner, he sought to devote all his money and efforts towards winning back Jesus Christ’s Holy Sepulchre (burial cave) from Muslims in the Holy Land.

King John II denied Columbus’s request to fund his voyage across the Atlantic. Indeed, Columbus was ridiculed for seeking to reach India by sailing west rather than east.

The funding for Columbus came from Spain instead. Though Columbus was Italian, it was Spain who financed his voyages as the strain of fighting the Muslims subsided. Isabella and Ferdinand felt secure in granting the Genoese upstart Christopher Columbus his long-awaited funds. Beginning on August 3, 1492, Columbus embarked on four voyages, perhaps becoming the first European to discover the New World, although at first he believed he had reached India (hence his name for the inhabitants of the New World: “Indians”). The discoveries by Columbus included the Bahamas, Cuba, Haiti, San Salvador, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad and Honduras. Columbus’ astounding success presented an increasing challenge to Spain’s Portuguese rivals.

The pope finally resolved this rivalry between Spain and Portugal in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which established an 1100-mile long “Line of Demarcation.” This division of world territories gave Portugal trading rights in India, China, the East Indies, East Brazil and Spanish Americas. Spain was given control of the remaining, vast majority of the Americas. Ferdinand Magellan then led the first successful voyage to circumnavigate the globe in 1519. Although Magellan was killed by Philippine natives before completing the last leg of the journey, he was the first to sail around Cape Horn at the tip of South America to enter the Pacific Ocean. Only 18 of approximately 250 sailors made it back to Spain three years later, in 1522.

As a result of Magellan’s journey, Spain gained control of many South American territories, including Mexico and Peru. Spain also obtained control over the Philippines in the Far East. Spanish warrior Hernando Cortes led the conquest of Mexico, with the initial help of the Aztecs, many of whom believed Cortes was their god Quetzalcoatl (who, conveniently for the Spanish, was expected to appear that very year). Cortes captured the Aztec ruler Moctezuma (popularly known as “Montezuma”) and conquered their empire. Cortes was also aided by an Aztec woman named Malinche, who served as a guide and translator. Cortes burned the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan and built Mexico City in its place.

Francisco Pizzaro led the conquest of Peru, betraying and eventually killing their emperor, Atahualpa. The ancient Peru city of Cuzco was completely destroyed and replaced with the city of Lima. While in Peru, Pizzaro also discovered the greatest silver mine in the Americas, the vast majority of which was traded with China, whose economy was based on silver. Both Cortes’ and Pizzaro’s conquests were facilitated by the use of horses, superior weapons, and devastating European diseases like smallpox. The native population had no immunity to such disease, and simply giving them a bunch of blankets exposed to the deadly germ could end up killing many natives.

Using the Spanish system of “encomiendas”, many of the South American natives became slaves to their Spanish conquerors. A Dominican monk and missionary, [[Bartholomew de Las Casas]], sent sensational descriptions to the Spanish government of the supposed atrocities committed against the “patient, meek and peaceful” natives by the Spanish conquistadors, whom he described as “cruel tigers, wolves and lions.” Although some of what Las Casas said was true, historical research has proved most of it to be false and exaggerated. However dishonest his methods may have been, Las Casas’ reports eventually led to the king of Spain issuing “New Laws,” by which exploitation of the natives was ended by the replacement of the old “encomiendas” with the new “repartimientos”. Both systems are criticized as unfair today. The system of “encomiendas” was based on royal grants of land, while the system of “repartimientos” was based on gifts of Indian labor. Either way, the Indians ended up working for the Spanish.

===Exploration by Other Nations===

Other European nations participated in exploration as well. King Henry VII of England sent John Cabot, a resident of London born in Genoa (like Columbus), to explore across the Northern Atlantic Ocean. Cabot discovered Newfoundland and the New England coast in 1497 and 1498, respectively, and the land became the property of England. From France, Jacques Cartier discovered Canada and the Mississippi Basin, including Louisiana in 1534 and 1541. These colonies were initially less significant than those in South America, and there was a lack of initial interest in North America because it did not have the gold and silver of South America. Whereas intermarriage and cultural blending occurred heavily among the Spanish and the Indians in South America, it barely existed between the English or French and the Indians in North America.

Of course, eventually the interest and development in North America increased and surpassed that of South America. Commercial competition between European nations in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)—a conflict brought to America in the form of the French and Indian War. This War marked the end of French (and Spanish) influence in North America, and signaled the rise of Britain as the primary world superpower for the next 150 years.

===The Slave Trade===

In what is known as the “Columbian Exchange,” plants and animals were brought from America to Europe and vice-versa. Columbus brought from Europe to America wheat, melons, onions, grapes, sugar cane and horses. Horses proved to be influential not only in the European conquest of native peoples but also in the natives’ abilities to avoid white settlers, particularly among the Plains Indians in North America.

America had new fruits and vegetables that were then exported to Europe and Africa. America introduced the white potato to Europe and the manioc or cassava to Africa. Chili peppers, pumpkins, squash and peanuts were also brought back from America and became popular in countries such as India. These new foods helped increase population, and in Africa the population growth almost cancelled out population losses caused by the slave trade.

Slaves became a major part of the Columbian Exchange. In 1455, a “papal bull” (formal letter by the pope) justified a “right” of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The Spanish had already been enslaving South American natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of African slaves were brought by the Spanish and Portuguese to Mexico, Peru, the Caribbean and especially Brazil. The growth of sugar—which had first been introduced to Europe when the Muslims ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

[[Slavery]] was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of “chattel” slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the “Triangular Trade” between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the “triangle” of trade.

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, and in South America it was finally ended in Brazil in 1888.

===China’s Role in the Age of Exploration===

In the East, under the Ming dynasty, Emperor Yongle sent a band of explorers led by “Zheng He” throughout parts of southern Asia, Persia, Arabia and Africa. The crew of over 28,000 men embarked on seven naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean from 1405 to 1423 and as a result, trade with East Africa began. However, by the 1430s, Mongol raids caused the Chinese to withdraw from exploration for the time being, and instead spend their time and money on defenses such as repairing the Great Wall.

The Ming dynasty thereby retreated from the world stage, mostly in order to strengthen Chinese defenses against Mongol threats. Beijing became the capital of China, and eventually the Ming rulers began to retreat even more completely from the outside world, living in an elaborate Beijing palace known as the “Forbidden City.” When a devastating famine occurred in China, the rulers were living extravagantly in their secluded palace and cared little for the plight of the peasants. The people of China revolted, and in 1644, the Ming Dynasty was replaced with the Qing, made up of the Manchu peoples.

Under the Qing dynasty, marriage between members of the Chinese and Manchurians was forbidden, and the official spoken language remained Chinese. Female infanticide occurred, as well as the practice of binding the feet of rich girls and, increasingly, middle class girls also. The primary philosophy was Neo-Confucianism, a mixture of Buddhism and traditional Confucianism. Jesuits attempted to evangelize China, but were not very successful. Nevertheless, a Jesuit presence in China contributed to the exchange of ideas and technology between the East and the West.

China did not withdraw completely from world trade during the Ming and Qing dynasties. China continued to trade with the Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Dutch, mainly for silver, which had become the Chinese currency, and with the Russians for furs. Under the Ming dynasty, beautiful blue and white porcelain was produced and exported. The influence of the Ming vase spread throughout the Muslim and Christian worlds, as seen in Holland through the production of Delft pottery and in England, Wedgwood China. Other Chinese exports included silk and tea, and imports consisted of spices, textiles and animal skins from Europe. Maize, sweet potatoes and peanuts were brought over from the Americas and became popular crops in China.

==Growth of Nation-States and Monarchs==

The development of European nation-states continued throughout the Renaissance and Age of Exploration. In the 1400s and 1500s, the most powerful nation-states were England, France and Spain. The Holy Roman Empire, which consisted of parts of Italy and Germany, was a powerful but declining force. Enemies that weakened the Holy Roman Empire included the Ottomans and French enemies, who resisted its expansion. The fact that the cultures of Germany and Italy were very different also contributed to the downfall of the Holy Roman Empire, as did the Reformation.

The European nation-states grew in power by strengthening their central authority. They increased bureaucracy, the size of their armies and the amounts of their taxation. The rise of absolutist rulers contributed to the centralization of France, Spain, Austria, Russia and Prussia. The nature of an absolute monarch was expressed well in this famous quote attributed to Louis XIV (1527-1598), “L’etat c’est moi!” (I am the state). Absolute monarchs controlled all aspects of government and society including the church, the bureaucracy and the military. Absolute monarchs claimed “divine right” to rule, stating that they had been appointed by God himself and were therefore responsible to God alone. They enjoyed “sovereign immunity” under the view that “the king can do no wrong,” a principle that continues to exist in English and American law today (unless government “waives” its immunity with a law granting certain rights to sue it).

Religious conflict in England between Catholics and Anglicans caused absolutism to fail there. The “Glorious Revolution” (so named by supporters of the Church of England) brought down the Catholic King James II and the idea of divine right along with him, placing William and Mary on the throne in 1688. In France, however, absolutism triumphed until the French Revolution, especially with the reign of Louis XIV, the leading absolute monarch in Europe. The French court at Versailles during the reign of Louis XIV, who called himself the “Sun King,” was considered rich in culture and an example to other societies. Truth be told, it was also extravagant and immoral.

In Spain, Philip II (1638-1715), who was the great-grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand, worked to cleanse Spanish territories of all religions but Catholicism, and viewed Elizabeth I of England as his main rival. But his mighty Spanish Armada was defeated by a quicker English fleet in 1588. In 1579, William of Orange led the Netherlands in a revolt against their Spanish masters. These two losses contributed to the weakening of Spanish power.

Meanwhile, artistic pursuits flourished during this period in Spain. El Greco (1541-1614), a painter, architect and sculptor best known for his paintings of saints and martyrs, and drew a stunning of a storm over a Spanish town (“A View of Toledo”). Diego Velázquez painted portraits of the royal family and scenes from daily life at court. In 1605 Miguel de Cervantes wrote the novel Don Quixote, probably the most influential piece of Spanish literature, and Lope de Vega wrote an estimated 2,000 plays.

In Russia, absolute emperors known as “czars” arose. The first czar of Russia was Ivan IV “the Terrible,” who executed many innocent people during his fearful reign from 1533 to 1547. Ivan was succeeded by his son Feodor, whose repeated failures led Russia into a “Time of Troubles.” In 1613, the first of a long line of Romanov czars, Mikhail Romanov, took the throne. Under Romanov rule, serfs lost almost all of their freedoms. Peter the Great, another Romanov who ruled Russia from 1682 to 1696, instituted sweeping reforms in Russian government and society. He built St. Petersburg and tried to make European traditions a part of Russia. In the Great Northern War against Sweden, new territories were gained. Other absolutist rulers arose, such as the Hapsburg Empress Maria Theresa in Austria, and the Hohenzollern Frederick the Great from Prussia. These two rulers clashed in the War of the Austrian Succession, in which Frederick won the territory Silesia.

Europeans during this era desired a “balance of power” that would prevent any single nation from becoming most powerful. The expression of this idea was seen in the intense competition and warfare between the various European nations for control in Europe, especially with the Thirty Years’ War. The war initially began as a religious conflict in Germany between Bohemian Protestants and Hapsburg Catholics in 1618. However, it soon became a political conflict for power that involved Spain, Holland, Denmark, France, Switzerland and The Holy Roman Empire. The Treaty of Westphalia finally marked the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648. The war significantly weakened Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, as well as Austria and Spain. Although France was largely a Catholic country, it had chosen the side of the winning Protestants in order to oppose the Holy Roman Empire, and France emerged strengthened and more unified as a result.

==The Scientific Revolution==

A remarkable Polish scientist named [[Nicolaus Copernicus]] (1473-1543) made a stunning claim that rocked the religious and scientific world: he asserted that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe. All this is suggested by the systematic procession of events and the harmony of the whole Universe, if only we face the facts, as they say, ‘with both eyes open.’” With that bold declaration, this respected scientist in the Catholic Church began the “Scientific Revolution,” which rejected geocentric (earth-centered) theory of the universe dating back over a thousand years to Ptolemy.

Copernicus worked for years on his book describing his theory, and did not publish it until near the very end of his life. He entitled it, “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” (“On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres”), and published it in 1543. The work was far from perfect: Copernicus assumed that the planets moved in circular revolutions (they actually revolve in ellipses, though the orbit of the earth is nearly circular), and Copernicus also thought that the sun stood motionless as some kind of stationery temple in the universe.

The reception to his work was initially positive within the Catholic Church, but negative among Protestants who felt it conflicted with some literal interpretations of the Bible, such as the account of how Joshua benefited from the sun standing still as it passed over the earth. “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua 10:13. But there were few Protestants in Poland then (or now), and Copernicus died without much controversy.

[[Johannes Kepler]] (1571-1630), a Protestant in Germany, built on Copernicus’s work and discovered that planets orbited the sun in ellipses rather than circular orbits. Kepler was a brilliant mathematician, astronomer and devout Christian who cited God many times in all of his writings. He felt it was his Christian duty to understand the creation of God, the universe. He also felt that man, being in the image of God, was fully capable of understanding the universe. Like Plato and Pythagoras, Kepler felt that God must have created the universe according to a mathematical plan.

[[Galileo]] (1564-1642) was a contemporary of Kepler who lived in Catholic Italy. Galileo was not as bright as Kepler or Copernicus, and was a bit of an entertaining showman who made a lively party guest. He taught geometry to medical students so that they could use astronomy and astrology in the practice of medicine. Galileo’s primary scientific contribution was his improvement on the telescope in order to view celestial bodies.

But the Catholic Church was then in a struggle with Protestantism, which was critical of Copernicus’s theory of the earth revolving around the sun. In 1616, the Catholic Church officially prohibited teaching Copernicus’s theory as fact, although there was no objection to learning it as a mathematical theory. Galileo, however, felt Copernicus was correct and wanted to teach his theory. He had met with Pope Urban VIII on numerous occasions and felt that the Church would not object to Galileo’s publishing the Copernican theory about the universe.

There was no right of free speech in Italy at that time, and in 1632 Galileo published a work called “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican” with the apparent approval of the Catholic Church. Buyers and readers of the book were led to believe that Galileo’s reflected the official views of the Church, when they did not. Galileo had received permission from a local cleric in Florence, but not from Church authorities in Rome, and they felt that Galileo knew that he was prohibited from claiming that the Church supported the Copernican view.

Galileo also angered Church officials in the way that he mocked opponents of the Copernican system. His “dialogue” was between a fictional Salviati, who supported the Copernican system, and an Aristotelian philosopher given the unflattering name “Simplicio”. The simpled-minded “Simplicio” was made to look like the pope himself, and was mocked in the book for his skepticism about the Copernican system.

In the book’s climax, Salviati supposedly proves the Copernican system by citing the movement of the tides. This was completely false and already disproved by Kepler.

Catholic Church officials were furious about this book and the Inquisition banned its sale. Galileo was summoned to Rome. Unlike Luther, Galileo remained a Catholic and fully accepted whatever judgment the Church would render against him. His “trial” was a bit of a farce, probably put on for show more than anything, with Galileo living in plush quarters at all times. At the end of the trial Galileo was required to live in a house where the Church could keep an eye on him, and was not imprisoned. Galileo then continued his scientific work but was kept from embarrassing the Church further. Galileo never split from the Church and completely accepted his punishment.

There were other noteworthy scientists during this era. [[Vesalius]] advanced the understanding of anatomy for medical doctors. [[John Harvey]] explained the circulatory system in human anatomy. [[Rene Descartes]] was a French mathematician and philosopher who discovered [[analytical geometry]] and famously declared, “I think, therefore I am.” [[Francis Bacon]] promoted research based on experimentation.

Then there was Sir [[Isaac Newton]], who after Jesus Christ was perhaps the most influential man who ever lived. If Newton were alive today, then he would be described as a Christian fundamentalist. Everything Newton did was inspired and motivated by his powerful faith in the Word of God in the Bible. Abandoned by his own mother, Newton had an [[inferiority complex]] that drove him to achieve more and more. In one summer he discovered the laws of [[gravity]] and also [[calculus]], and the world has never been the same since.

Like most other men who made great advances in knowledge in world history, Newton discovered and explained something that was unseen: the invisible force of gravity. Newton proposed action-at-a-distance, whereby one object attracts another through an invisible force of gravity. Newton was ridiculed for proposing that something unseen could act at a distance and influence something else millions of miles away from it. Yet Newton was right. Speaking of the world in which live, Newton once said, “Why not try to understand it?” Newton understood it and explained it to the rest of us, and we are forever grateful.

A German contemporary of Newton, Gottfried [[Leibniz]], deserves mention. Like Newton, Leibniz was a devout Christian. In fact, Leibniz was a Lutheran who dreamed of reuniting that denomination with the Catholic Church. Leibniz was also a brilliant mathematician who developed calculus independent of Newton. It was Leibniz, not Newton, who first published the notation for the integral: f(x) dx. An ugly dispute developed between Newton and Leibniz over who discovered calculus first. Most English-speaking historians give the credit to Newton but bias may play a role in that. The world certainly benefited immensely from Leibniz as well as Newton.

==The Enlightenment==

The “Enlightenment” was a philosophical movement in the 1700s that emphasized an intellectual approach rejecting traditional social, political and (sometimes) religious views. Philosophers in the Enlightenment felt that breakthroughs in science, such as Isaac Newton’s discoveries, could be duplicated in other fields through a systematic and logical approach. However, Newton’s breakthroughs were inspired by his Christian faith, while some of the Enlightenment thinkers rejected and even criticized Christianity. There were Enlightenment philosophers in England, France and even the American colonies. There were stunning new works in classical music, and the arts flourished in what is known as the neo-classical period.

Note how the term “Enlightenment” is biased and self-serving. It makes it appear that people became enlightened compared to their ignorant ancestors. In fact, the achievements of the so-called “Enlightenment” movement were not any greater than other movements and periods in history, and there are valid criticisms of certain aspects of the Enlightenment.

Frenchman Voltaire (1694-1778) was a leading philosopher in the Enlightenment, advocating freedom everywhere and emphasizing his form of reason. He wrote “The Candide,” in which Voltaire described many bad things that happen to Candide in order to make the point that the world could be a better place. Increased freedom was Voltaire’s way of improving things. His ideas later formed the basis of French Revolution, when many innocent people (including the French royalty and much of the aristocracy) were murdered and churches destroyed amid a reign of terror.

Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) was the leading political philosopher, whose ideas helped the American colonists form a new government. Locke described society as a contract between an individual and society. This was a radical concept at a time when monarchs and the divine right of kings was the controlling theory. Locke’s view helped lay the foundation for the constitutional government that we use in the United States. Locke had built on the prior work of Englishmen Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.

Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was the leading legal authority on English law, upon which much American law is based. Law students in America hear about him frequently in law school. In “The Rights of Englishmen,” Blackstone described the source of the rights of the people.

Frenchman Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) proposed the concept of separation of powers, and checks and balances, in government. This inspired the United States Constitution. His book, “The Spirit of the Laws,” explained essential aspects of good government that became enormously influential.

Another Frenchman, Denis Diderot (1713-1784), contributed to literature, speculated on free will and attachment to material things, and edited an encyclopedia of scientific and social knowledge known as “Encyclopedia”.

Swiss-born political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) wrote several controversial works. He felt that politics and morality could not be separated, and that the will of the majority was not always correct. Many Americans today would agree with that view. However, Rousseau also attacked private property, and laid the groundwork for future communist writers such as Karl Marx. Rousseau declared that government’s goal should be to provide freedom, equality and justice. But note that freedom often results in inequality.

Irishman Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was in the British parliament when the conflict with the American colonies occurred, and he sided with the colonies, making him a hero to many in America. He is also considered to the world’s first political conservative, and many conservatives today praise him for that reason. His works included “Inquiries into the Sublime and Beautiful” (defending the American colonies and examining how people interpret what they see) and “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (warning how bad the French Revolution was because a few would gain control and abuse their power, even while everyone else praised that Revolution). What was striking about Burke was that he was almost always right in his political assessments and predictions.

The Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776) was a philosopher and historian who promoted materialism and naturalism rather than spirituality. He was a “skeptic” towards religion, and he penned “A Treatise on Human Nature.” He quipped, “You can tell what is inside a person’s soul by what comes out if it.” Hume is considered the greatest philosopher to write in English, but that is only because there were so few good English philosophers. Hume has been criticized for his atheistic approach and his chief claim to fame is that Charles Darwin declared Hume to have been his central influence, as did “Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley. Hume believed in relativism rather than absolute truth, and that not even what God creates has absolute beauty: “Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them,” Hume declared.<ref>David Hume’s ''Essays, Moral and Political'' (1742).</ref>

The German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the most famous philosophers ever. In his “A Critique of Pure Reason,” Kant criticizes pure reason as a guide to life. Kant may not have been a Christian himself, but he considered Christian values to be the best values in the world. Kant also established a systematic basis for critical philosophy and suggested a material origin for the solar system. Kant’s own suggestion for a moral daily life was this: don’t do something which, if everyone did it, then the outcome would be bad. Expressed another way, an act is moral only if it works as a rule for everyone. For example, littering would be wrong because if everyone did it, then there would be an ugly mess. Kant is taught in all college philosophy departments to this day, though not for praising Christianity!

Finally, let’s recognize American contributions during the Enlightenment. The greatest works in government were created by the Founding Fathers. These works include the Declaration of Independence (1776) with its statement of inalienable rights and a right to break the social contract with a ruler when he (the king) violates natural rights. The United States Constitution (1787) gave the world a masterful design for government. The Federalist Papers (1788), and particularly articles by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (most notably No. 10) were also significant.

==Capitalism==

Just as Isaac Newton’s discovery and explanation of the unseen force of gravity was a brilliant insight in science, Adam Smith of Scotland discovered a powerful unseen force in economics known as the “invisible hand.” If government allows free enterprise to flourish on its own, without interference by government, then an “invisible hand” harnesses the power of self-interest for the overall good of society. Companies are guided by this “invisible hand” to work in a way that is beneficial to others, and the overall wealth and progress of society will increase. This is what Adam Smith wrote in the influential ''The Wealth of Nations'', published in the same year as the Declaration of Independence in America: 1776. Adam Smith’s book is still considered the world’s greatest economics masterpiece. He explained how the basis of wealth is found in a free economy with an unregulated exchange of goods, whereby the supply of goods and services responds in an efficient way to the demand of the public without government intervention. Smith advocated the concept of laissez faire, which means “allow to do” or, more simply, “hands off” by government. Ironically, homeschooling in New Jersey (and a few other states) is an activity that most resembles Adam Smith’s ideal of an unregulated market. Let’s defend this lack of regulation of homeschooling while we can!

“Capitalism” became the prevailing economic theory in Britain as a result of the insights of Adam Smith and others. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines capitalism as follows: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” Britain quickly became the largest and greatest empire in the history of the world as a result of its adherence to this superior economic system. The British empire was larger than even the Mongol empire, except that the British empire was not "contiguous" on loan, but included faraway places like Australia.

A related economic theory known as “mercantilism” also became popular. Mercantilism was a policy for a nation (such as Britain) to increase its own national wealth based on trade with other nations and territories. Under mercantilism, a nation should accumulate gold by exporting more goods than it imported, and by using colonies (such as the English colonies in America) to ship raw materials to the mother country that could be manufactured and exported to other peoples. Another key component of mercantilism was establishing foreign trading monopolies that would have unfair advantages over competitors in other countries. One such British monopoly was the East Indian Tea Company, and its unfair business advantage caused the colonists in Boston to revolt in the form of the Boston Tea Party.

While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was positive in almost every way, mercantilism did have a dark side of exploitation of colonies for the benefit of the mother country.

Adam Smith did not invent capitalism, but gave it a powerful intellectual justification. In 1607 -- over 150 years before Adam Smith -- capitalism had already played a prominent role in the first settlement of North America at Jamestown, which was funded by a joint-stock company (a privately owned company having a structure similar to the corporations of today). Joint-stock companies or corporations were (and are) a form of capitalism; decisions are made privately by those acting on behalf of the owners, without any direct control by government.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture 08}}

Oxbridge

2009-03-16T17:02:35Z

ETrundel:

'''Oxbridge''' is a portmanteau word used to describe the old [[English]] universites of [[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]. It is used in similar contexts to the American term [[Ivy League]], in that both universities are world-famous and world-class, with high competition for places among applicants. Both universities are famed for their almost mystical interview process, in which an applicant may be asked to throw a brick out of a closed window, grab the attention on an interviewer who is reading a paper or extrapolate on the qualities of a banana. In reality, however, these sorts of questions are very rare, and as the interview is left entirely in the hands of the interviewer, they are becoming even rarer as older, more traditional professors retire.

The term, (with its alternative, "Camford" which is no longer used) was first recorded in W. M. Thackeray's "''Pendennis''" (1848-50).

Reference: "Brewer's Britain and Ireland"
[[Category:Universities]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-16T16:56:57Z

ETrundel: /* Politically correct */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-16T16:15:27Z

ETrundel: /* Politically correct */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-16T16:13:57Z

ETrundel:

Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"

2009-03-15T19:23:31Z

ETrundel: /* Parthian shots and threats */ Not a parodist

This is an essay showing some of the best examples of moronic and [[liberal vandalism]] on [[Conservapedia]]. We all hear about [[vandalism]], but how many of us, or how many visitors, have actually seen it? Now, you will see a list showing the user and the vandalism they "contributed." Mild language may be included, but at least the vowels will be censored for now.

==Specific Examples==

*'''NumaL''' writes in this very [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Examples_of_Moronic_Vandalism_by_the_%22tolerant%22&diff=prev&oldid=601858 article]: The Message: be alert for parody vandals like Bugler and MexMax, who may often be indistinguishable from Andy Schlafly, and appear to have the weight of site authority behind them. Because the site administration can't tell the difference between parody and their wonky belief system, only YOU can prevent parodists!

*'''Testament9''' enlightens our entry on [[Pope]] by inserting: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pope&diff=prev&oldid=50987 STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, OCTOPUSS. B*STARD!!!!]

*'''UberChristian''' turns the [[atheism]] article to: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=prev&oldid=283816 "Atheism is the philosophy of individuals who don't require an invisible man in the sky to direct their lives."]

*An unknown user wrote this article titled "Liberal vandal": Anyone who is smarter or more knowledgable than Andy Schlafly.

*They sure have some great content for [[Creationism]]. '''N0izeterrorist''' adds: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=prev&oldid=390370 This is actually all fckin' rubbish. If you believe this crap, you need your brain checked. SCIENCE: IT WORKS, B1TCHES!]

*Creationism again! '''Grammer''' reminds us that Creationism is: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=prev&oldid=396361 A pseudo-theory which has no evidence to support it, but is still endorsed by butthurt Christians who are pissed because they can't prove evolution wrong.]

*'''Boogerman''' adds to [[homosexuality]]: Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It is approved by the Bible as an egregiously cool act. Also Jesus himself enjoyed a good homosexual orgy now and then. Of course, this can only be found in the Bible: Uncut. You know, the proper bible. ('''I am sorry this one is vulgar but it is a prime example''')

*The [[Holy Bible]]! '''Atheist11''' replaces the page with: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bible&diff=prev&oldid=438932 is not true.]

*'''Cwlhandluc''' tells us (and how could we forget?) that: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bible&diff=prev&oldid=445797 The bible is rubbish its an absolute lie!]

*'''ILoveJesus8888''' replaces the [[Islam]] article with: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&diff=prev&oldid=537900 STOP BEING SUCH NARROW-MINDED, ETHNOCENTRIC, DOUCHE-BAGS, CONSERVAPEDIA.] ('''That's the most Christ-loving person I've seen in a while!)'''
*Another Islam addition: islam>jews>catholics. Also jews did wtc

*'''I Want My Thunder''' moved [[Andrew Schlafly]] to: Andrew Schlafly is a ****.

*'''Moby''' adds to the first paragraph of [[Christmas]]: Christmas is a Christian holiday which celebrates the recieving of presents, and sex with an attractive lady dressed as one of "santa's little helpers". Christmas is typically celebrated on December 25th, with the annual hangover of December 26th. The word Christmas comes from a quote from Moses when he said "Jesus 'christ, mass' orgy or what?"

*'''JudgeKing''' replaces the [[Conservative]] article [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=prev&oldid=551848 with]: 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas'

*Conservative again. '''Mikedenney''' intelligently defines "conservative" as: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&diff=prev&oldid=71077 A BIG FAT IDIOT THAT MAKES A CRAPPY WEBSITE LIKE THIS!!! GO WIKIPEDIA!!!]

*On the [[abstinence]] page, '''Yukikonielsen''' writes: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abstinence&diff=prev&oldid=593696 "Abstinence doesn't always work; Mary tried it, but got pregnant anyway."]

*'''Johnnycochran''' replaced the [[Wikipedia]] page with the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=112101&oldid=107498 following] (while not denying that Wikipedia in fact has a bias): RICKA TICKA TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TOCK RIIIING RING A DING DING RING A DING DING RICK A DICK DICK RICK A DICK DICK RINGA DINGA DING DING DOOOOONG

*'''DurhamFalks''' (again without actually challenging the page's POV) replaces Wikipedia with: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=247484 Andrew Schlafly is a D.U.M.B.A.S.S.]

*'''Ihategod''' updated the [[God]] article with: Stupid people think He exists and He is good and merciful. Intelligent people know that God doesn't exist and that He is simply a pig.

*'''CarleenW''' posted this on Andy's talk page: Want to be taken seriously like Wikipedia? Stop being such moronic a--holes!

*'''NumaL''' inserts into [[Bugler]]: At Conservapedia, user:Bugler proved that Andy Schlafly couldn't differentiate between parody and his own hateful belief system.

*'''Theyseemetrollin''' gave a wonderful alternate meaning to [[Raid]], the bug spray: It is also when this Conservapedia gets trolled into oblivion since it's made mostly of sick old men, Pedophiles, Right-wing christians and Nazis.

*'''Inbloom''' writes in the [[God]] article, "God is a liar".

*'''McCain2010''' replaces the first line of [[Massachusetts liberal]] with: A Queeria gay is a typically ultra-gay in or from Queeria, in many ways the most gay state in the United States.

*'''Fadsd''' replaced [[Democratic Party]] with the informative (if unintelligible), FAGS GOD IS DEAD DON'T YOU KNOW IT?

*'''Fd''' replaces several pages, including a userpage, [[Hate crime]], and [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‎]], with: FREE SEX! FREE LOVE! THERE'S NO JESUS, ONLY FREE SEX! FREE INTERNET! FREE BURMA!

*'''MoeLarryAndJesus''' adds an example of evidence for humans and [[dinosaur]]s coexisting: A documentary exists starring the American actor Raymond Burr in which a dinosaur menaces mainland Japan, but the veracity of the film is disputed.

*'''Newjew''' created a debate page, '''Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it'''. He then contributed (as the only contributor): No. God can't really create stuff, being all nonexistent and stuff. So yeah. He can't lift rocks either.

*'''Adamberger''' replaced large portions of the [[Jesus Christ]] article with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jesus_Christ&oldid=631175#Jesus.27_Life "Jesus was a stupid Arab,"] "You know you love [[Bill Maher]]", and then proceded to use the word [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jesus_Christ&diff=631178&oldid=631175 "MUSLIM!"] in said typeface hundreds of times.

*'''Uberrepublican''' replaced part of the [[Democratic Party]] article with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Party&diff=632354&oldid=632349 "This website sucks beyond belief, and almost every page is plagued with lies."]

*'''QNorris''' fixes up [[Obama-isms]] with exactly the following (Try out the new and improved links!): This article is a steaming pile of ''[[Christianity|bullshlt]]'' that shouldn't even be tolerated on a ''[[Conservativism|crap]]'' wiki like ''[[Conservapedia]]'' by ''[[George W. Bush|dooshebags]]'' like Conservapedia users. Oh, and your spam filter ''[[Sarah Palin|sucks]]''.

*'''IloveAnnCoulteFIVE''' replaced the [[Ann Coulter]] article with: Ann Hart Coulter is a sweaty c***.

==Parthian shots and threats==

*'''Bugler''', a long-time parodist, left Conservapedia by saying, “Enjoy your strange world.”

*'''AlexanderM''', another long-time parodist, left Conservapedia with his userpage set as "D--mit Bugler, you ruined it for everyone else!"

*'''RodWeathers''', a vandal posing as a [[conservative]], wrote an essay threatening to undermine and damage [[Conservapedia]]. The best quotes follow:

....But what if a mischievous user, instead of linking images of [[Hitler]] and inserting silly insults, poisoned Conservapedia's articles? What if such a user inserted illusory facts into articles, quoted books never written by men never born, and cited fantastical statistics from studies never conducted? Imagine the glee such a [[person]] would feel at seeing ''Conservapedia's administrators'' using those very same statistics to refute sane individuals making reasonable arguments.

Edit and upload rights improved my ability to create valuable articles, though for a brief time, but Andy chose to ''begin'' with block rights, ''unsolicited'', which in an instant turned me from a credit to the site to a menace. With the legitimacy this afforded, I used [[email]], TK's most favored of media, to turn away as many sane and reasonable users as I possibly could, especially kids. Ever had a conversation with a blocked kid's parents? They end up horrified by what Conservapedia is.

Nay, it's not this account that you need worry about, but the others, which I use to undermine Conservapedia as a resource from day to day. You don't know who they are, and will never know. I doubt you'll ever manage to block so much as one of them, as I'm quite careful to keep them all on different proxies. I'll give you hint by which you might know them, however: ''they add content to articles, and sometimes reference sources''. Sometimes the material they add is factual, or mostly factual, just stretching the truth. More often, it is the fruits of fancy, spanning countless fields of human knowledge which are completely beyond the Conservapedia administration's expertise.

*'''FredFerguson''' left a parthian shot at the Main Page talk. Part of it is as followed: '''Parents:''' Mr Andy Schlafly is a complete charlatan. He really doesn't have a clue what he's talking about most of the time. I realise that home-schooling costs money, but please, please, ''please'', spend your hard-earned cash on someone else, someone who actually knows how to teach your children. Avoid Mr Schlafly completely.

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Conservapedia]]

Aristobulus I

2009-03-14T16:23:24Z

ETrundel:

'''Aristobulus I''' ruled Israel as king from 104 to 103 BC.

Aristobulus was the son of [[John Hyrcanus]]. He had hoped to change the government into a kingdom so upon his father's death he took the title "king" which his predecessors had not done. Because of this he was the first priest-king of the Jewish people.

During his brief reign he extended the kingdom's territory into Iturea in southern Lebanon. He required the his conquerored subjects to convert to Judaism. When he died in 103 BC his brother [[Alexander Jannaeus]] succeeded him.

== References ==
*''Chronicle of the Old Testament Kings'', John Rogerson, Thames and Hudson, 1999.

United Kingdom

2009-03-14T16:22:08Z

ETrundel: /* People */ Unfortunately not.

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Gordon Brown
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =60,587,300 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence (although the current name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was not adopted until 1927), but its origins can be traced back at least to 1603, when England and Scotland came to be ruled by a single monarch (James I of England and VI of Scotland). England and Scotland were formally united under a single parliament, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain, on 1 May 1707.<ref>Murdoch, Alexander, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/96/96282.html England, Scotland, and the Acts of Union (1707)], Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press, Jan 2007, accessed 1 May 2007</ref>

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its current [[head of state]] is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith <ref>http://www.worldwhoswho.com/public/views/royal_families.html?country=UNITED_KINGDOM</ref> (often shortened to HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]), and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], whose official title is First Lord of the Treasury and technically should be referred to as such if applying a title directly to his name or any other previous incumbent of the office<ref>http://www.explore.parliament.uk/Parliament.aspx?id=10216&glossary=true</ref>

(''i.e. When referring to Gordon Brown it is incorrect to address him or refer to him as Prime Minister Gordon Brown, rather he should be referred to either as '''the''' Prime Minister (title of the office) Gordon Brown or First Lord of the Treasury (title of the person who holds the office) Gordon Brown'').

[[nationalism|Nationalist]] movements of significance exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. The UK's values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], and the UK's contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] (or Episcopalian) Church, a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
The official name of the country (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''. The adjective associated with the United Kingdom is "[[British]]". From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''.

The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents.

* The '''United Kingdom''' is one short version of the official name, and is used for current events since 2000, and for geographical discussions. This is the normal term used to refer to the country as a whole.
* '''Great Britain''' and '''Britain''' are short versions of ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'' but care should be taken about the context in which these terms are used because "Great Britain" is the name of the largest island in the United Kingdom which contains [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. As a result this term can cause offence to citizens of [[Northern Ireland]].
* '''Britain''' is used (without the adjective "Great") as a synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole.<ref>number10.gov.uk - [http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Countries within a country] - Website of the British Prime Minister.</ref> Historical books and articles normally use "Britain" or "Great Britain" rather than "United Kingdom" or "UK".
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published outside the UK before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member nations and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland..

==Anthem==
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. When [[Queen Elizabeth II]] dies or abdicates, her son [[Prince Charles]] will become [[King]], and the anthem will become "God Save the King", with the other words remaining the same (apart from obvious changes in gender pronouns). This same melody is also sung by [[American]] schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".

The constituent nations of the UK have come to have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''[[Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau]]'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''[[Flower of Scotland]]''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''[[Land of Hope and Glory]]'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is most commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

It should be noted that ''God Save the Queen/King'' is only the national anthem by long usage, since about 1745. It has never been declared so officially.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|240px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe. The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. About one-fifth of British students go on to post-secondary education. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are the official churches in their respective parts of the country, but most religions found in the world are represented in the United Kingdom.

A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Religious Beliefs===
According to the 2001 [[Census]] the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]] union, [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]] League and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League of England. Teams such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are well known sports club brands and maintain followings across the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights." Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Subject to the term limitations a prime minister can continue to govern while he or she commands the support of parliament

==Parliament==
Founded in the Magna Carta, which was drawn up and sealed in 1215 by King John, and first summoned by King Edward I, Parliament has existed since 1296, giving Parliament a current age of 712 years<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/keydates_1215_1900.cfm</ref>. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. The maximum parliamentary term is 5 years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call a general election at any time. The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. The House of Lords has more time than the House of Commons to pursue one of its more important functions--debating public issues. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a [[First past the post]] system.

==Constituent countries==
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the [[Good Friday Agreement]], and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP'''
*Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon David Miliband MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Jack Straw MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department '''- Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform '''- Rt Hon Peter Mandelson'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon John Hutton MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP'''
*Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families '''- Rt Hon Ed Balls MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Edward Miliband MP'''
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon James Purnell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP'''
*Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council '''- Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP'''
*Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills '''- Rt Hon John Denham MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP'''
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Mr Jim Murphy MP'''

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Nicholas Brown MP'''
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Mr Liam Byrne MP'''
*Minister of State for Housing '''- Rt Hon [[Margaret Beckett]] MP'''
*Minister for Employment and London '''- Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP'''
*Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN '''- Rt Hon Lord Malloch-Brown KCMG'''
*Minister for Science '''- Lord Drayson'''
*Minister for the Olympics and Paymaster General '''- Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC'''
*Minister of State for Europe '''- Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP'''
*Minister for Children, Young People and Families '''- Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
Tony Blair became the first Labour Prime Minister ever to win a third consecutive term when he was re-elected on May 5, 2005. Labour has a 67-seat majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative (Tory) Party and Liberal-Democrats (LibDems) form the major opposition parties. Blair stepped down as Prime Minister in June 2007. Labour Party leader Gordon Brown succeeded him. The main British parties support a strong transatlantic link, but have become increasingly absorbed by European issues as Britain's economic and political ties to the continent grow in the post-Cold War world. The current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is expected to continue Blair's policy of having the United Kingdom play a leading role in Europe even as the United Kingdom maintains its strong bilateral relationship with the United States. Britain's relationship with Europe is a subject of considerable political discussion in the United Kingdom.

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.

The United Kingdom stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The U.K. force in Afghanistan will increase to 7,700 by the end of 2007. U.K. forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, the U.K. has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S. The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner in Operation Iraqi Freedom and continues to have more than 5,000 troops deployed in Iraq to help stabilise and rebuild the country. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the United Kingdom's alliance with the United States during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
The United Kingdom has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The Labour government has continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.

London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

The United Kingdom is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2006 est.): 2.8%.
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas, tin, limestone, iron ore, salt, clay, chalk, gypsum, lead, silica.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system. This change was not without its critics.

The UK was one of the three [[European Union]] nations of the time (along with [[Sweden]] and [[Denmark]]) not to join the [[Euro]] at its inception, a position it maintains. Banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are permitted to print their own banknotes, as long as they keep an equivalent amount of sterling in reserve.

==History==
The Roman invasion of Britain in 55 BC and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====
Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by Sir Francis Grant.]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.
====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

====20th Century====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominisons" within the empire. They became charter members of the British Commonwealth of Nations (now known as the Commonwealth), an informal but closely-knit association that succeeded the empire. Beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s. Today, most of Britain's former colonies are independent countries, with many belonging to the [[Commonwealth of Nations]]. There are 13 colonies which have elected to continue their political links with London and are known as United Kingdom Overseas Territories. These include Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands.

== See also ==

*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== Notes ==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

United Kingdom

2009-03-14T16:21:11Z

ETrundel: /* Religious Beliefs */

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Gordon Brown
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =60,587,300 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence (although the current name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was not adopted until 1927), but its origins can be traced back at least to 1603, when England and Scotland came to be ruled by a single monarch (James I of England and VI of Scotland). England and Scotland were formally united under a single parliament, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain, on 1 May 1707.<ref>Murdoch, Alexander, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/96/96282.html England, Scotland, and the Acts of Union (1707)], Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press, Jan 2007, accessed 1 May 2007</ref>

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its current [[head of state]] is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith <ref>http://www.worldwhoswho.com/public/views/royal_families.html?country=UNITED_KINGDOM</ref> (often shortened to HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]), and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], whose official title is First Lord of the Treasury and technically should be referred to as such if applying a title directly to his name or any other previous incumbent of the office<ref>http://www.explore.parliament.uk/Parliament.aspx?id=10216&glossary=true</ref>

(''i.e. When referring to Gordon Brown it is incorrect to address him or refer to him as Prime Minister Gordon Brown, rather he should be referred to either as '''the''' Prime Minister (title of the office) Gordon Brown or First Lord of the Treasury (title of the person who holds the office) Gordon Brown'').

[[nationalism|Nationalist]] movements of significance exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. The UK's values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], and the UK's contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] (or Episcopalian) Church, a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
The official name of the country (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''. The adjective associated with the United Kingdom is "[[British]]". From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''.

The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents.

* The '''United Kingdom''' is one short version of the official name, and is used for current events since 2000, and for geographical discussions. This is the normal term used to refer to the country as a whole.
* '''Great Britain''' and '''Britain''' are short versions of ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'' but care should be taken about the context in which these terms are used because "Great Britain" is the name of the largest island in the United Kingdom which contains [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. As a result this term can cause offence to citizens of [[Northern Ireland]].
* '''Britain''' is used (without the adjective "Great") as a synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole.<ref>number10.gov.uk - [http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Countries within a country] - Website of the British Prime Minister.</ref> Historical books and articles normally use "Britain" or "Great Britain" rather than "United Kingdom" or "UK".
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published outside the UK before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member nations and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland..

==Anthem==
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. When [[Queen Elizabeth II]] dies or abdicates, her son [[Prince Charles]] will become [[King]], and the anthem will become "God Save the King", with the other words remaining the same (apart from obvious changes in gender pronouns). This same melody is also sung by [[American]] schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".

The constituent nations of the UK have come to have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''[[Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau]]'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''[[Flower of Scotland]]''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''[[Land of Hope and Glory]]'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is most commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

It should be noted that ''God Save the Queen/King'' is only the national anthem by long usage, since about 1745. It has never been declared so officially.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|240px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe. The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. About one-fifth of British students go on to post-secondary education. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are the official churches in their respective parts of the country, but most religions found in the world are represented in the United Kingdom.

A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English, Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic.
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Religious Beliefs===
According to the 2001 [[Census]] the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]] union, [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]] League and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League of England. Teams such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are well known sports club brands and maintain followings across the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights." Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Subject to the term limitations a prime minister can continue to govern while he or she commands the support of parliament

==Parliament==
Founded in the Magna Carta, which was drawn up and sealed in 1215 by King John, and first summoned by King Edward I, Parliament has existed since 1296, giving Parliament a current age of 712 years<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/keydates_1215_1900.cfm</ref>. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. The maximum parliamentary term is 5 years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call a general election at any time. The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. The House of Lords has more time than the House of Commons to pursue one of its more important functions--debating public issues. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a [[First past the post]] system.

==Constituent countries==
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the [[Good Friday Agreement]], and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP'''
*Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon David Miliband MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Jack Straw MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department '''- Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform '''- Rt Hon Peter Mandelson'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon John Hutton MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP'''
*Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families '''- Rt Hon Ed Balls MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Edward Miliband MP'''
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon James Purnell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP'''
*Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council '''- Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP'''
*Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills '''- Rt Hon John Denham MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP'''
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Mr Jim Murphy MP'''

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Nicholas Brown MP'''
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Mr Liam Byrne MP'''
*Minister of State for Housing '''- Rt Hon [[Margaret Beckett]] MP'''
*Minister for Employment and London '''- Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP'''
*Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN '''- Rt Hon Lord Malloch-Brown KCMG'''
*Minister for Science '''- Lord Drayson'''
*Minister for the Olympics and Paymaster General '''- Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC'''
*Minister of State for Europe '''- Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP'''
*Minister for Children, Young People and Families '''- Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
Tony Blair became the first Labour Prime Minister ever to win a third consecutive term when he was re-elected on May 5, 2005. Labour has a 67-seat majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative (Tory) Party and Liberal-Democrats (LibDems) form the major opposition parties. Blair stepped down as Prime Minister in June 2007. Labour Party leader Gordon Brown succeeded him. The main British parties support a strong transatlantic link, but have become increasingly absorbed by European issues as Britain's economic and political ties to the continent grow in the post-Cold War world. The current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is expected to continue Blair's policy of having the United Kingdom play a leading role in Europe even as the United Kingdom maintains its strong bilateral relationship with the United States. Britain's relationship with Europe is a subject of considerable political discussion in the United Kingdom.

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.

The United Kingdom stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The U.K. force in Afghanistan will increase to 7,700 by the end of 2007. U.K. forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, the U.K. has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S. The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner in Operation Iraqi Freedom and continues to have more than 5,000 troops deployed in Iraq to help stabilise and rebuild the country. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the United Kingdom's alliance with the United States during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
The United Kingdom has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The Labour government has continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.

London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

The United Kingdom is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2006 est.): 2.8%.
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas, tin, limestone, iron ore, salt, clay, chalk, gypsum, lead, silica.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system. This change was not without its critics.

The UK was one of the three [[European Union]] nations of the time (along with [[Sweden]] and [[Denmark]]) not to join the [[Euro]] at its inception, a position it maintains. Banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are permitted to print their own banknotes, as long as they keep an equivalent amount of sterling in reserve.

==History==
The Roman invasion of Britain in 55 BC and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====
Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by Sir Francis Grant.]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.
====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

====20th Century====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominisons" within the empire. They became charter members of the British Commonwealth of Nations (now known as the Commonwealth), an informal but closely-knit association that succeeded the empire. Beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s. Today, most of Britain's former colonies are independent countries, with many belonging to the [[Commonwealth of Nations]]. There are 13 colonies which have elected to continue their political links with London and are known as United Kingdom Overseas Territories. These include Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands.

== See also ==

*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== Notes ==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Lake District

2009-03-14T16:05:13Z

ETrundel:

The '''Lake District''' is an area of [[Cumbria]] in northern [[England]] noted for its large number of lakes and its outstanding natural beauty, one of the 14 National Parks in the [[United Kingdom]]. The Lake District is also an important cultural landscape, having inspired writers as diverse as the 'Lake Poets' ([[William Wordsworth]], [[Robert Southey]] and [[Samuel Taylor Coleridge]]), and the author [[Beatrix Potter]].

The main bodies of water in the Lake District include:

* Bassenthwaite Lake
* Buttermere
* Coniston Water
* Crummock Water
* Derwent Water
* Devoke Water
* Ennerdale Water
* Grasmere
* Haweswater Reservoir
* Hayeswater
* Loweswater
* Rydal Water
* Thirlmere
* Ullswater
* Wast Water
* [[Windermere]]

The area is also somewhat mountainous by British standards, with several "fells" or "pikes" as they're colloquially known, including (in order of height):

#Scafell Pike, 978 m / 3210 ft (England's highest point)
#Scafell, 965 m / 3162 ft
#Helvellyn, 951 m / 3118 ft
#Skiddaw, 931 m / 3054 ft
#Great End, 910 m / 2986 ft
#Bowfell, 902 m / 2960 ft
#Great Gable, 899 m / 2949 ft
#Pillar, 892 m / 2926 ft
#Nethermost Pike, 891 m / 2923 ft
#Catstycam, 889 m / 2917 ft
#Esk Pike, 885 m / 2903 ft
#Raise (Lake District), 883 m / 2896 ft
#Fairfield, 873 m / 2863 ft
#Blencathra, 868 m / 2847 ft
#Skiddaw Little Man, 865 m / 2837 ft
#White Side, 863 m / 2831 ft
#Crinkle Crags, 859 m / 2818 ft
#Dollywaggon Pike, 858 m / 2815 ft
#Great Dodd, 857 m / 2807 ft
#Grasmoor, 852 m / 2795 ft
#Stybarrow Dodd, 843 m / 2772 ft
#St Sunday Crag, 841 m / 2759 ft
#Scoat Fell, 841 m / 2759 ft
#Crag Hill, 839 m / 2753 ft
#High Street, 828 m / 2717 ft

Due to the beautiful scenery, the Lake District is a popular tourist destination, particularly for walkers or climbers. However, some fear that the tourist industry is having a negative impact on the area, causing picturesque villages to become tacky to cater to tourists. There is also concern about a decreasing amount of homes available for locals, as it is popular to buy a second home in the area for holidays.

==External Links==

[http://www.lake-district.gov.uk/ Lake District National Park Authority] 
[http://www.cumbria-the-lake-district.co.uk/ Cumbria & Lake District Tourist Board]
[[category:geography]]

Talk:Anti-Americanism

2009-03-09T20:05:51Z

ETrundel: Vandalism and insults are still vandalism.

While I am not anti-American per say I do not have respect for Bush. However I agree that anti-American sentiment is alive and well.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:25, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

:I'll have to research further, but:

::''"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."'' - Kofi Annan

:Are we sure the initial invasion of Iraq had UN approval?
::yes it did: [http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm][http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm][http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm][http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm][http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html][http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
Maybe it is a good idea to explore the "why" behind there being so much anti-American sentiment, yes? What is it that causes it? It could make for an interesting investigation and article. After all, people do not wake up and say, "I hate America." --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 08:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

==Reason==
I dont think people are Anti-America more they are anti-Bush. I have been to America and thought the people and places were wonderful however when ever I Bush mbling with the English language and people like Rumsfeld lie through their teeth I get very grumbly.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Wait... ==
Does criticism really constitute anti-Americanism? Criticism can be constructive and is key to progress- I think there are better ways to put this. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 22:49, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Nationalism

2009-03-09T19:52:58Z

ETrundel: rmv vandalism

Patriotism is not the same thing as nationalism.

Could someone in the know give a caption for that painting? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:23, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexuality and Murders

2009-03-09T19:49:15Z

ETrundel: rmv vandalism

Please don't remove controversial information. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T17:46:16Z

ETrundel: /* Reply to the Above */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Mistletoe

2009-03-09T17:19:15Z

ETrundel:

'''Mistletoe''' is a parasitical plant that grows on [[oak]] trees. It has green leaves and small, waxy white berries (which are inedible); sprigs of mistletoe are traditionally used as Christmas decorations in many countries. A kiss under the mistletoe is a tradition recognised world-wide.

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T17:17:12Z

ETrundel: /* Reply to the Above */

Talk:World History Lecture Seven

2009-03-09T17:11:36Z

ETrundel: /* Genocide */

== Old English ==

I like what you have to say about it, but I don't agree that it's as unrecognizable as (I think) you're trying to say.
:''Eft he axode, hu ðære ðeode nama wære þe hi of comon. Him wæs geandwyrd, þæt hi Angle genemnode wæron. Þa cwæð he, "Rihtlice hi :sind Angle gehatene, for ðan ðe hi engla wlite habbað, and swilcum gedafenað þæt hi on heofonum engla geferan beon."''

:''Some simple pronouns like "he" are recognizable, as are the Old English equivalents of verbs like "were".''

This is just my take on it, but if you even hazard a guess at OE pronunciation, and read the line aloud, there are several words (even nouns) that are recognizable! And there are the obvious ones, as you pointed out, like "him", "that", "for", "and".
*''Eft'': after
*''axode'': asked (the x>ks is called metathesis, and people still do it (improperly) in English today when they say "aksed")
*''engla'': angel
*''heofonum'': heaven (alright, there's a case ending, but it still looks like heaven!)

:: Great work! Go ahead and add a paragraph in the lecture with your observations, if you like. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Oh my gosh, thanks for that fast response! I hardly had time to finish reading about feudalism, which I found developed in France a couple of centuries before England. Since Middle English borrowed the word "tyranny" from French "tyrannie", is it possible that the concept may have existed in France/French before we grabbed the word in the 14th century? The same could be said I guess for numbers. I might not understand what you're trying to say, but Latin had plenty of numbers, so did German and others (Hebrew, Arabic?), and they were all around before English was even on the horizon! (My girlfriend is a linguistics major and talks about etymology ALL the time. It's a good thing I'm equally interested in it :)

:::: I don't see any contradictions with the lecture in what you say above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
:::: ''There would have been no concept of "tyranny" under feudalism before that time.'' My only point was just that maybe the concept of tyranny existed before the English word, in the French word "tyrannie", or Latin, or Greek (where it ultimately came from). But anymore I'm not trying to point out that anything's wrong, per se, just expanding.
::::I've never gotten a response from you before, it's nice to finally "meet" you! [[User:JParker|JParker]] 18:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::Hi JParker! [http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/new_to_old_english_t.htm This dictionary has "nýdgeweald" for "tyranny"]. Obviously the concept is older than that. On numbers, you may be interested by [http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml Numbers in over 5000 languages]. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Andrew, how are you defining ''somewhat primitive'' with regard to Old English? The sentence looks a bit like you're saying it's primitive because we can't understand it today; I'm sure this isn't what you mean. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:55, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Denise, in response to your comment and in explanation of alteration of some of your edits, we don't subscribe to the fallacious view that all languages are equal. See [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]] for how English lacked terms for concepts and then developed them anew. Old English lacked those and many other terms, and had a vocabulary that was only a tiny fraction of the vocabulary of English today. That makes it primitive, despite how much liberals may pretend that is politically incorrect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Don't worry, I was only asking what your definition was as a matter of interest, I wasn't pushing any fallcious views :). I just think that you might usefully rewrite the sentence to uncouple the first half (that we can't understand it today) from the second half (it is primitive).
:: To check - are you saying that bigger lexicons (more lexemes?) are a sufficient or merely a necessary property of a language to make it less primitive than another language? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Denise, discussion is not productive if you insist that all languages are equal. That point of view is a dead end and makes further inquiry pointless.

::: Big vocabularies are advantageous. Words that express powerful, important concepts (as in [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words]]) are advantageous. I realize that doesn't fit the politically correct dogma that all languages are somehow equivalent, but we're going to teach the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Did I ''say'' all languages were equal? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Denise, regardless of whether you admit it or not, your view that most or all languages are somehow equal is not conducive to productive inquiry. I teach the truth and do not waste time trying to cater to linguistic political correctness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Genocide==

Sorry, are you actually teaching children that there were no genocides before the 20th Century? Really? The original inhabitants of Tasmania would be surprised to hear that. Or at least they would be if they had not all been killed in a Genocide. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:Kim, you have to be more substantive than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Every single member of the population of Tasmania was killed. How would you describe that if not as a genocide?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 13:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Unsourced is how I would describe it. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T16:59:53Z

ETrundel: /* Reply to the Above */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T16:50:27Z

ETrundel: /* Reply to the Above */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-08T18:28:08Z

ETrundel: /* A new word? */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-08T18:19:23Z

ETrundel: /* A new word? */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-08T17:45:53Z

ETrundel: A new word?

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-03-06T19:13:44Z

ETrundel: /* More religion */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Public schools in the United States

2009-03-05T12:43:03Z

ETrundel: /* Pre-1962 Graduates */ Can't really say this when the list below is bigger.

[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] are [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> Spoken [[prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], and sharing of [[faith]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principle then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Homosexual indoctrination is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref>

Public school students in America have these characteristics:

*30% fail to graduate from high school<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref>

*Nearly 70% leave high school unqualified to go on to four-year college.<ref name="graduate"/>

*77% have used illicit drugs. Fatal overdoses are common but underreported; public schools are required to present drug "education" to kids<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002] Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref>
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*One in three teen girls in the United States is estimated to get pregnant at least once before age 20.<ref>http://www.4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_preg/teen_preg.html </ref>
*:About 10% of the girls become pregnant in a typical school; about half have [[abortion]]s, and about half give birth; public schools "educate" kids about sex<ref>"There is zero shame" to [[teenage pregnancy]] at public school, the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and in [[Hawaii]] students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% go on dangerous "binge drinking," and 50% drink illegally<ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% become addicted to cigarettes<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*35% are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Nearly 10% have mental health problems<ref name="health"/>
*More than 10% of public high schools have a pro-homosexual student club

==Undermining traditional concepts of right and wrong==

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref>

== History and Terminology ==

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and [[kindergarten]] did not exist until it was created in St. Louis in 1873.

In the [[United Kingdom]], the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others. The term public was used because the school was open to all public applicants, albeit ones that could afford to pay the fees. The UK equivalent of US public schools are called state schools which provide education for free to all pupils.

The first UK state school, Beverley Grammar School, was founded in 700AD. Despite the fact that around 90% of UK children are educated at one, state schools are looked down upon and derided. This is especially so of the 'Bog Standard Comprehensive' where images of teachers wearing stab vests and knife arches and invoked.

== Student Prayer in Public Schools ==

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President Clinton stated, "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1995<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the Bush administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

== Public schools and declining literacy ==
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

==Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ==
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.
==Effect of liberal mindset on textbooks==
Textbooks (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal]] bias exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—marriage, religion, politics, and business. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread secular and liberal mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the University of Dayton, wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the founders wanted a "wall of separation" between church and state, that "Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only because he needed black soldiers", and that "Mikhail Gorbachev, not Ronald Reagan, was responsible for ending the Cold War". <ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

==Pre-1962 Graduates ==
Given that [[public schools]] educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school prayer in 1962.

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961. <ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>

==Post-1962 Graduates==
Celebrities, Businessmen, Astronauts, Nobel Laureates, Medal of Honor Recipients, and Candidates who attended public school after prayer was banned in 1962 include:

*Pat Tillman, NFL football player and US Army soldier graduated from Leland High School CA <ref>http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=197041</ref>
*Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, attended Miami Palmetto Senior High School FL.<ref>http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0bio-1
</ref>
*Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo.com, graduated from Sierramont Middle School, and Piedmont Hills High School, CA. <ref>http://goldsea.com/Innovators/Yangjerry/yangjerry3.html</ref>
*David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo.com graduated from Sam Houston High School TX. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/301/000123929/</ref>
*Kathryn D. Sullivan, NASA astronaut and first American woman to walk in space, graduated from Taft High School, Woodland Hills, California, in 1969. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/sullivan-kd.html</ref>
*S. Christa Mcauliffe, astronaut participant, graduated from Marian High School, Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1966. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mcauliffe.html
</ref>
*Mae C. Jemison, NASA astronaut and first African-America woman in space, graduated from Morgan Park High School, Chicago, Illinois, in 1973. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/jemison-mc.html
</ref>
*Ellen Ochoa, NASA astronaut and the first Hispanic-American woman astronaut, graduated from Grossmont High School, La Mesa, California, in 1975. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/ochoa.html</ref>
*Jeana Yeager, aviator, graduated from Commerce High School GA in 1970.<ref>http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/mrp/pdf/today/12-07-05.pdf
</ref>
*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981. <ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*John Sununu, Senator, graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's. <ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html
</ref>
*[[John Edwards]], politician, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*Spike Lee, producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Bill Gates]], founder of Microsoft, ''left'' public school after attending in Seattle until the age of twelve.<ref>http://www.thocp.net/biographies/gates_bill.htm</ref>
*[[Rush Limbaugh]] graduated from Central High School, MO in 1969 and attended Southeast Missouri State University for two semesters <ref>http://www.phillytalkradio.com/shows/show.php?show_id=limb</ref>
*Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, attended Martin Van Buren High School, Queens, NY, during the late 1960's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/720/000140300/</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class Randall Shughart, U.S. Army, Battle of Mogadishu hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Big Spring High School in Newville, PA in 1976. <ref> http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/shughart.html\</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, U.S. Army, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Tampa Bay Vocational Technical High School, FL in 1988. <ref>http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/profile/index.html</ref>
*Cpl. Jason Dunham, U.S. Marines, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Scio High School NY, in 2002.<ref> http://copthetruth.typepad.com/cop_the_truth/2007/03/uss_jason_dunha.html</ref>
*Lt. Michael Murphy, Navy SEAL, Afghanistan War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Patchogue-Medford High School in 1994. <ref> http://www.pat-med.k12.ny.us/Schools/HS/articles/0708/murphy/index.html</ref>
*Laura Bush attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964).{{fact}}
*John Cromwell Mather, Nobel laureate, graduated from Newton High School, Newton, NJ in 1964. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000137504/</ref>
*George Fitzgerald Smoot, Nobel laureate, graduated from Upper Arlington High School, Upper Arlington, OH in 1962. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/921/000137510/</ref>
*Hugh David Politzer, Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1966. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/716/000140296/</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]

[[category:Schools]]
[[category:United States History]]

Illegal immigration

2009-03-05T12:36:04Z

ETrundel: /* Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. */ Away with Captain Obvious

[[Image:Coleman - Arellano.jpg|thumb|The Rev. [[Oscar Carrasco]] and [[Elvira Arellano]]]]

'''Illegal immigration''' is when people without legal permission from a country cross the border and proceed to dwell there. Therefore, illegal immigration is the act of immigrating to a country without having the right to do so. A person who migrates without the legal right to do so is known as an [[illegal alien]].

__TOC__
==U.S.==
Illegal immigration has become a major issue in the [[United States]] in the 1980s, and continues to be a highly visible issue.

===Economic aspects===

Illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and gasoline taxes; most are too poor to pay income taxes. Many use fake Social Security numbers and pay Social Security taxes but are not eligible for any benefits. Many use tax-payer funded services such as health care and schools.

===Numbers of people===

Pew estimates about 12 million illegal immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2004.<ref>Higher estimates run to 20 million; [http://immigrationcounters.com/ see high estimate]</ref> However, many are afraid to use available services, such as domestic violence shelters, out of fear of deportation. Many illegals cannot speak English.

===Arguments favoring it===

====No one else wants those jobs anyway====
Illegal immigrations is defended, saying that migrants are simply coming to take [[unskilled job]]s that better educated Americans avoid, such as picking fruit and lettuce, making hotel beds and working in [[slaughterhouse]]s.

====They need political asylum====
A small percentage come illegally to escape political oppression, as legal channels are not open to them.<ref>http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html immigration Usa</ref><ref>www.uscis.gov Immigration and Naturalization Services</ref><ref>www.dhs.gov Department of Homeland Security</ref> Marriage to a U.S. citizen does not automatically gain one citizenship. When Army Spc. Alex Jimenez was captured by terrorists in [[Iraq]], his wife was almost deported by the government. Strong public opinion allowed her to stay.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/20/national/main2956093.shtml Missing Soldier's Wife Faces Deportation]</ref>

===Where they come from===
[[Mexico]] is the source of the about half of the recent illegal immigrants to the United States. Most arrive legally and over-stay their visas. Others cross the border mostly through the desert southwest or less often by swimming across the [[Rio Grande]].

====Dispute with Mexico====
The United States receives constant criticism from the Mexican government for its efforts to curb illegal immigration. And United States officials criticize Mexican officials for passing out handbooks on how to cross the border, saying Mexico is trying to avoid political and governmental reforms at home by encouraging its citizens to leave.

===Legal aspects===
Illegal entry is a [[misdemeanor]] in U.S. law, at the level of [[speeding]]. Those who are caught are promptly expelled from the country without penalty. However, multiple illegal entries can lead to [[felony]] convictions.

====Mexico and Mexicans====
Ironically, one of Mexico's harshest criticisms was a plan by the United States to make illegal immigration a felony offense, which would impose harsher penalties on illegal Mexican immigrants. Mexico's own laws make illegal immigration a felony offense in that country.[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1602610/posts][http://www.vdare.com/awall/060518_memo.htm]

Many Mexicans have to come to the United States to work because for many years the Mexican government was [[socialist]], being under the control of the [[Institutional Revolutionary Party]], which limited [[economic opportunity]] and [[economic growth|growth]]. Before 2001 there was frequent movement across the border. It was common to work in summer jobs in the U.S. and spend the winter in Mexico. Border security since then has become much stricter, and it is far more difficult to cross repeatedly. Therefore the tendency was to remain in the U.S.

An unintended consequence of the tighter [[border security]] is that millions stayed in the U.S. and did not return.

Most Mexicans who come are religious and culturally conservative. They communities do not encourage [[homosexuality]], [[abortion]] or [[teenage promiscuity]].

Like other immigrant groups, many illegals send money to their families remaining in the old country. In Mexico this funding is the second largest source of [[foreign income]], after [[crude oil]] sales. It represents as much as 2.5 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product <ref>[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20724214~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html] World Bank Report on Migration and Welfare</ref>

==Amnesty==
The [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan Administration]] gave amnesty to all the illegals present in the country in 1986. The "Illigration Control and Reform Act" of 1986 legalized the status of about 3 million immigrants. Other laws legalized the status of immigrants from Cuba and Haiti. In 2006 President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] proposed legislation to legalize the status of most of the illegals. The business and religious communities supported the idea, but grass roots opposition blocked passage in Congress and denounced the notion of "amnesty."

==Moral issues==
As the [[Bible]] exhorts people to be compassionate towards illegal immigrants (Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 19:34), and as more Americans are [[Christian]] than any other religion, many Americans feel compelled by their religion to show compassion and caring for illegal immigrants, many of whom are trying to escape tyranny or poverty in their homelands.

Some conservatives oppose illegal immigration because it allows for immigrants to fall between the cracks of society thus making them more likely to commit crime or experience poverty. Other conservatives view illegal immigration as an exercise in a basic [[individualism|individual]] [[human rights|human right]] to pursue happiness. Illegal immigration is also economically damaging to countries because illegal immigrants will often work illegally for below minimum wage, resulting in job loss for legal citizens.

==Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.==

Among many others:

*2002 - Ingmar Guandique, a Salvadoran in the United States, is currently serving a ten year prison term for assaulting two joggers in Washington D.C. is now suspected of killing Chandra Levy. The Levy case is famous because during the initial investigation her relationship with California congressman Gary Condit was revealed, ending his career. <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/return-of-the-chandra-levy-case-and-illegal-alien-sex-offender-ingmar-guandique/</ref>

*2005 - Raul Garcia-Gomez, shot two Denver police officers in the back, killing one. He fled to Mexico and was captured. However, the Mexcian government sheltered Gomez until the American prosecutor agreed to not seek the death penalty against him. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337719,00.html Illegal Immigrant Worker Sentenced in Slaying of Actress Adrienne Shelly], ''[[Associated Press]]'', March 13, 2008</ref>

*2008 - Diego Pillco, a 20-year-old from Ecuador, pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter of actress Adrienne Shelly. Pillco was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Pillco admitted strangling Shelly and then hanging her body to make it look like a suicide. The judge said Pillco would be subject to immediate deportation upon release from prison. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337719,00.html Illegal Immigrant Worker Sentenced in Slaying of Actress Adrienne Shelly], ''[[Associated Press]]'', March 13, 2008</ref>

*2008 - Edwin Ramos, killed three people on their way home from a family picnic. Ramos had been arrested multiple times before the killings (once for mugging a pregnant woman), but the city of San Francisco shielded him from deportation. <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/20/MNK011MAFR.DTL</ref>

==Statistics==

The amount of people immigrating to the United States illegally has declined since 2001. People who formerly moved back and forth across the border (working the agricultural fields in the US in the summer and wintering in a village in the winter) has declined, and instead they tremain in the U.S. The estimated number of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 was about 12 million. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0603/charts.immigration/frameset.exclude.html?eref=yahoo</ref> <ref>[http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf A Line In The Sand] House Committee on Homeland Security</ref>

$397 billion dollars have been paid to families containing illegal immigrants through social services since 1996. Most of the money goes to schooling for U.S. citizens and for children.<ref>http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134</ref>

The number of illegal aliens who are in prison is over 300,000, about 3% of the total.<ref> The number of convicted criminal aliens in federal prison at the end of 2003 was 46,063; in state prisons and local jails here were 262,105.[http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html online]</ref>

Sex offenders comprised 2% of illegals who have been arrested. Nearly one million sex crimes were committed by illegal immigrants in the United States, in the seven years 1999-2006. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. <ref>[http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration] Violent Crimes Institute, 2006</ref>

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Most of the costs were incurred by U.S. citizens, however, not by the illegals. On average, the costs that illegal households impose are less than half that of other households. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs by illegals tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. <ref>[http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html The High Cost of Cheap Labor] Center For Immigration Studies</ref>

California spent more than 11 billion dollars per year on illegal immigrants. California is seeking the federal government to bail them out of their financial deficit.

== See also ==
*[[Latino]]
*[[Xenophobia]]
*[[Lozano v. Hazleton]]
*[[Elvira Arellano]]
*[[Reno v. Flores]]

==Bibliography==
* David W. Haines, Karen E. Rosenblum. ''Illegal Immigration in America: A Reference Handbook'' (Greenwood Press, 1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111894645?title=Illegal%20Immigration%20in%20America%3a%20%20A%20Reference%20Handbook online edition]
* Pierre Hauser, ''Illegal Aliens'' (1990)
* Jeffrey S. Passel, "Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics," Pew Hispanic Center Reports and fact Sheets. (June 14, 2005), [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=46 online]
* Claudia Sadowski-Smith. "Unskilled Labor Migration and the Illegality Spiral: Chinese, European, and Mexican Indocumentados in the United States, 1882–2007," ''American Quarterly,'' Volume 60, Number 3, September 2008, pp. 779-804 [http://muse.uq.edu.au/login?uri=/journals/american_quarterly/v060/60.3.sadowski-smith.html in Project Muse]
* Aristide R. Zolberg, ''A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America'' (2006)

==External Links==
*[http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=5455 Answering 13 Frequently Asked Questions About Illegal Immigration], [[Right Wing News]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Immigration]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]