Thursday, July 9, 2009
Forum on groups in Nazi Germany : for 3/5
Post your summaries and comments as comments on this topic. Feel free to include links or vids.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Link
If you do any kind of comparison question first find the issue. There will be two large issues, one that both sources agree on and another that they disagree on. Find both. In fact look along the lines of things like causes,effects,extent or degree of impact and perspective. It is usually along those lines.
If you are really lost,then look at what is the overall topic first then ask yourselves this question.
Are they saying the same thing?
Are they saying anything in slightly different ways of making different points on the issue?
Look there first and establish the issues before you proceed. It will help structure your answer.
Also,
Don't forget the linking words such as similarly,also,supports and however,whereas, in contrast, contradicts. Using these words give the examiner the fact that u know and can spot the similarities and differences. NEVER use words like saying about or one says this, the other says that. Be clear and use the linkages.
If you are really lost,then look at what is the overall topic first then ask yourselves this question.
Are they saying the same thing?
Are they saying anything in slightly different ways of making different points on the issue?
Look there first and establish the issues before you proceed. It will help structure your answer.
Also,
Don't forget the linking words such as similarly,also,supports and however,whereas, in contrast, contradicts. Using these words give the examiner the fact that u know and can spot the similarities and differences. NEVER use words like saying about or one says this, the other says that. Be clear and use the linkages.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Civilisation Time Bomb
I was watching History Channel's Digging for the Truth on Ang Kor Wat and found it absolutely fascinating. CAn you imagine that one of the most advanced civilisations to exist actually is three hours away from Singapore?
I visited Ang Kor a couple of years back and now, I'm wishing I watched the documentary first before going. It made a point that any civilisation with large building projects have been to build and move rocks without having a rope beneath it. There are holes in the rocks around the temples and they were used to slot in wooden poles to move the rocks. It is amazing to see that the whole of the main templ was stacked and then carved on the spot. Won't want to be the sculptor that makes a mistake. Furthermore, the rocks all fitted perfectly together because the surfaces were round smooth.
The thing about the civilisation was that it was a victim of its own success. Over planting and deforstation led to the clogging of their intricate water canals and led to limited water supplies in the cities. This let them have less crops, wealth and more vulnerable to enemie's attacks.
Over the weekend, I also went for a climate change conference and it got me thinking about in built destruction mechanisms to civilisations. For example, a reason cited for pollution is consumption and sometimes over consumption and waste production. But consumption is part parcel of the capitalist system. Our markets and societies thrive on needs and buying.It drives prosperity and the economy. If we consumed less, we would generate less wealth and the economy suffers. Hence, there is limited level of reduction of consumption that countries undertake in order to help climate change because all of us want to be wealthy.
Does that mean we are doomed?
One prof mentioned that perphaps we are not meant to halt climate change. We can only slow it down and more importantly perphaps, we are meant to survive it so that the next civilisation can do better. Who knows...........
I visited Ang Kor a couple of years back and now, I'm wishing I watched the documentary first before going. It made a point that any civilisation with large building projects have been to build and move rocks without having a rope beneath it. There are holes in the rocks around the temples and they were used to slot in wooden poles to move the rocks. It is amazing to see that the whole of the main templ was stacked and then carved on the spot. Won't want to be the sculptor that makes a mistake. Furthermore, the rocks all fitted perfectly together because the surfaces were round smooth.
The thing about the civilisation was that it was a victim of its own success. Over planting and deforstation led to the clogging of their intricate water canals and led to limited water supplies in the cities. This let them have less crops, wealth and more vulnerable to enemie's attacks.
Over the weekend, I also went for a climate change conference and it got me thinking about in built destruction mechanisms to civilisations. For example, a reason cited for pollution is consumption and sometimes over consumption and waste production. But consumption is part parcel of the capitalist system. Our markets and societies thrive on needs and buying.It drives prosperity and the economy. If we consumed less, we would generate less wealth and the economy suffers. Hence, there is limited level of reduction of consumption that countries undertake in order to help climate change because all of us want to be wealthy.
Does that mean we are doomed?
One prof mentioned that perphaps we are not meant to halt climate change. We can only slow it down and more importantly perphaps, we are meant to survive it so that the next civilisation can do better. Who knows...........
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Writing SBQ
In SBQ, structuring the writing is as important as writing the answer itself. I've seen answers whose points have been accurate and spot on but because of the phrasing, word choice or sequence of exmplaining, results in an answer that does not make as much of an impact.
For example in a Usefulness type question:
Negative
This source says that Iraq was using a smokescreen to cover their ambitious intentions. They wanted 200 miles of Persian Gulf. It is useful to a great extent in telling me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for war.
When you write something like this, it appears very disjointed and it seems not to be answering the question even though the points are there. Instead, when answering always always use the SEE or PEE style to explain
Positive
This source tells me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for invasion to a great extent. This is because it does state that the Rumaila claims are just "smokescreen" to cover their "ambitious Intentions". This evidence suggests and informs me that Iraq is attacking to gain more selfish and expansionist aims. Furthermore, the source states that Saddam wanted "200 miles of Persian Gulf coat line" suggesting that he is going to invade for land by the coast. These pieces of information do help me understand why he invaded Kuwait.
See the difference? By structuring the answer with Point, Evidence and then explaining the evidence, it answeras the SBQ more completely and helps make the answer clearer.
Please follow this type of PEE structure when tackling other SBQ questions
For example in a Usefulness type question:
Negative
This source says that Iraq was using a smokescreen to cover their ambitious intentions. They wanted 200 miles of Persian Gulf. It is useful to a great extent in telling me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for war.
When you write something like this, it appears very disjointed and it seems not to be answering the question even though the points are there. Instead, when answering always always use the SEE or PEE style to explain
Positive
This source tells me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for invasion to a great extent. This is because it does state that the Rumaila claims are just "smokescreen" to cover their "ambitious Intentions". This evidence suggests and informs me that Iraq is attacking to gain more selfish and expansionist aims. Furthermore, the source states that Saddam wanted "200 miles of Persian Gulf coat line" suggesting that he is going to invade for land by the coast. These pieces of information do help me understand why he invaded Kuwait.
See the difference? By structuring the answer with Point, Evidence and then explaining the evidence, it answeras the SBQ more completely and helps make the answer clearer.
Please follow this type of PEE structure when tackling other SBQ questions
Friday, January 23, 2009
Baby Gloom
By now , people should be aware that Singapore has a rapidly aging population. This Will lead to more money need to be spent on health care services and more importantly initiatives to keep seniors active and contributing to society. But why in the first place do we have a baby problem.
The problem lies in perhaps in my generation and people like me. I mean some people want to have families but it is a quite expensive to bring up a kid in Singapore. The cost of education is also quite high. But I would like to argue that it goes way beyond money. Of course the government has alot of monetary incentives for people to have children but that alone is never enough.
I think about myself and my friends and how tired we all seem to be when we meet up. Its like the pace of work in Singapore is very fast. We work hard and we work really long hours. I try to imagine what it would be like to go home after work and despite all the fatigue from work, still have to spend time nurturing a child, and I realise it is something that is really really hard to do.
The government does encourage a work life balance but at the end of the day, it is up to employers to put schemes in place to help their employees spend more time with their families.
Then there is the nature of our competitive education system and country in general, Everything is like a giant rat race from the moment a child enters school. In fact the whole country seems to be in a race, to get on the bus, the train to get to the food. We are not a friendly and gracious society and it sometimes feels as if everyone is only out for him or herself. Would anyone want to bring a child up in such a selfish society? What would the child learn from the adults around him?
Complain when you're unhappy, rush for seats, push people aside on the train, hesitate to help others. It is quite a bleak picture when I think about it.
And our transport system is so family unfriendly. I can sometimes barely get on the train and I can't imagine what mothers with strollers feel like.
Can this country become truly, a conducive place to bring up and nurture a child like? OF course! But that takes time. It takes society to be more kind, for parents to spend more time nurturing their children to be respectful and well-mannered, for employers to understand. But will it happen? probably not. Although the government will try their best, they are fighting a losing battle and society has to shift first before we become a great place to raise a child. And that, is the most difficult thing to achieve.
The problem lies in perhaps in my generation and people like me. I mean some people want to have families but it is a quite expensive to bring up a kid in Singapore. The cost of education is also quite high. But I would like to argue that it goes way beyond money. Of course the government has alot of monetary incentives for people to have children but that alone is never enough.
I think about myself and my friends and how tired we all seem to be when we meet up. Its like the pace of work in Singapore is very fast. We work hard and we work really long hours. I try to imagine what it would be like to go home after work and despite all the fatigue from work, still have to spend time nurturing a child, and I realise it is something that is really really hard to do.
The government does encourage a work life balance but at the end of the day, it is up to employers to put schemes in place to help their employees spend more time with their families.
Then there is the nature of our competitive education system and country in general, Everything is like a giant rat race from the moment a child enters school. In fact the whole country seems to be in a race, to get on the bus, the train to get to the food. We are not a friendly and gracious society and it sometimes feels as if everyone is only out for him or herself. Would anyone want to bring a child up in such a selfish society? What would the child learn from the adults around him?
Complain when you're unhappy, rush for seats, push people aside on the train, hesitate to help others. It is quite a bleak picture when I think about it.
And our transport system is so family unfriendly. I can sometimes barely get on the train and I can't imagine what mothers with strollers feel like.
Can this country become truly, a conducive place to bring up and nurture a child like? OF course! But that takes time. It takes society to be more kind, for parents to spend more time nurturing their children to be respectful and well-mannered, for employers to understand. But will it happen? probably not. Although the government will try their best, they are fighting a losing battle and society has to shift first before we become a great place to raise a child. And that, is the most difficult thing to achieve.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Blame Game
Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar......
If one cookie goes missing then can there only be one culprit? Its never really just one who...unless its cookie monster. HE definately stole the cookies. But maybe he had friends, maybe, Some others want the cookie to be stolen. Who made cookie monster, a MONSTER in the first place? So are the monster makers the one that stole the cookies?
Blaming someone for something is never easy and trust me on this words can make all the difference. For example: Who was to blame for the Cuban Missile Crisis
Best answer: almost everyone involved had a part to play.
The trick is to be able to classify and make clear if the blame could fall more heavily on one or two parties. adjectives can make all the difference in an explanation words like:
Aggressive action, Provoke, Instigate, inaction, irk, irritate, anger
Explaining the blame is a tricky business. It is very easy to fall into the trap of describing what happened instead. Be clear and take about the nature of the blame and only about one party at a time. Here's an example of how it can go.
At the end of the day, both America and and USSR were responsible for the crisis where it seemed as if both might go to war. This is because both took deliberate and provacative action that made the other worry and fear for his country's safety. America is to blame for setting the stage that could allow the crisis to take place in the first place. By planning the bay of pigs incident where they tried to invade Cuba and by putting missiles that can reach moscow in turkey in 1959, it made both Cuba and Russia fearful and wary of them and more likely to take counter measures to off set their threat. Russia was at perphaps less at fault as their provocative action of putting missiles on Cuba was in defense of a communist state, Cuba. However, their Krushchev's defiant and attitude towards Kennedy's demands for their removal and the very act of putting the missiles there would provoke the USA to feel threatened and react to put in place aggressive measure like a naval blockade to protect themselves. At the end, it is the tensions, paranoid fear of the arms threat caused by both countries in this cold war that resulted in the crisis. If they had to try to diffuse tensions earlier and found a way to communicate, this entire affair could have been prevented.
Hope this helped
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Potsdam conference
I was actually wrong about the Potsdam Conference and the view of Stalin during it. It is an opinion that he didn't trust the USA already because of the atomic bomb that they only told him on the spot but had been developing for years. He knew about it from his spies but he didn't betray anything... Got this from the Manhattan project website:
"Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese." The reason for Stalin's composure became clear later: Soviet intelligence had been receiving information about the atomic bomb program since fall 1941. "
The Manhattan Project is the name they gave to the research and development of the atomic bomb. This website is worth to check out: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/potsdam_decision.htm
It has detailed stuff about what was happening just before the dropping of the bombs. Cool sources too!
Many people have pointed to Potsdam as the start of the Cold War. Yalta in 1945 was where they set the tone for the future of Europe and Russia agreed to war against Japan but it was at Potsdam when these discussions continued that fissures emerged. Truman was more suspicious then Roosevelt and things they clashed with Russia was the future of Poland and the eastern European states as well as how to treat Germany. Russia wen on to instill communist leaders in Russia hence gaining distrust over their true intentions.
I think that Russia did want to spread their influence but also did so to ensure a buffer and allies in the face of America aggressively recruiting allies through the Marshall Plan, Nato and other schemes. The way America acted, it seemed they openly distrusted Russia and was building might against them. Russia acted like wise. Hence : The Cold War.
Oh and there's an interesting and great comic out there called The WatchMen. Must read if you can get your hands on it.
"Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese." The reason for Stalin's composure became clear later: Soviet intelligence had been receiving information about the atomic bomb program since fall 1941. "
The Manhattan Project is the name they gave to the research and development of the atomic bomb. This website is worth to check out: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/potsdam_decision.htm
It has detailed stuff about what was happening just before the dropping of the bombs. Cool sources too!
Many people have pointed to Potsdam as the start of the Cold War. Yalta in 1945 was where they set the tone for the future of Europe and Russia agreed to war against Japan but it was at Potsdam when these discussions continued that fissures emerged. Truman was more suspicious then Roosevelt and things they clashed with Russia was the future of Poland and the eastern European states as well as how to treat Germany. Russia wen on to instill communist leaders in Russia hence gaining distrust over their true intentions.
I think that Russia did want to spread their influence but also did so to ensure a buffer and allies in the face of America aggressively recruiting allies through the Marshall Plan, Nato and other schemes. The way America acted, it seemed they openly distrusted Russia and was building might against them. Russia acted like wise. Hence : The Cold War.
Oh and there's an interesting and great comic out there called The WatchMen. Must read if you can get your hands on it.
Monday, January 5, 2009
How to run 42km
I recommend you buy this book: Marathoning for Mortals . I bought it when I did my first 21 km run in 2005 and I still use and refer to it today.
There are a couple of things to do to plan to run 42km.
1. Respect the distance. 42km is a really really long way and recognise that it will take quite a bit of training.
2. Set a goal. Are you a first time runner? Do you have injuries? Coming up with a realistic running goal according to your abilities and the time you can afford to train is essential in any marathon running. If you are running for the first time, I suggest just aiming to finish.:)
3. Plan. Plan your training, refer to books and if you have trainers, listen to them. Running 10 km and running a full marathon are very very different. You have to factor in stamina and strength building, endurance and even mental strength. It is amazing the amount of focus you need when you run beyond 5 hours.
4. Stick to the plan. We all slack off from time to time and please don't give yourself too much of a hard time about it. But do try sticking to your plan. It all builds up to better running.
I use a modified Galloway method when I run. I run 4 mins and walk 1min on run day itself and follow a training plan in the book in which training runs prepared me very well. The strange thing is that run/walking made me faster then running over longer distances. If you are starting to run, do consider this method. It allows your running muscle groups to rest in short intervals.
There's an age minimum for marathons, 18 I think. Please check. Hope this helped.:)
Oh and please get the book or any book to guide you.
There are a couple of things to do to plan to run 42km.
1. Respect the distance. 42km is a really really long way and recognise that it will take quite a bit of training.
2. Set a goal. Are you a first time runner? Do you have injuries? Coming up with a realistic running goal according to your abilities and the time you can afford to train is essential in any marathon running. If you are running for the first time, I suggest just aiming to finish.:)
3. Plan. Plan your training, refer to books and if you have trainers, listen to them. Running 10 km and running a full marathon are very very different. You have to factor in stamina and strength building, endurance and even mental strength. It is amazing the amount of focus you need when you run beyond 5 hours.
4. Stick to the plan. We all slack off from time to time and please don't give yourself too much of a hard time about it. But do try sticking to your plan. It all builds up to better running.
I use a modified Galloway method when I run. I run 4 mins and walk 1min on run day itself and follow a training plan in the book in which training runs prepared me very well. The strange thing is that run/walking made me faster then running over longer distances. If you are starting to run, do consider this method. It allows your running muscle groups to rest in short intervals.
There's an age minimum for marathons, 18 I think. Please check. Hope this helped.:)
Oh and please get the book or any book to guide you.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Suicide Attack in Sri Lanka
The one thing I do like about Social Studies as a subject is the fact that it is evolving as we speak. It is relevant, it is about the now and today and there are many incidents to look out for that adds to our understanding of the many case studies that are featured in the syllabus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7653945.stm
The tamil tigers have launched a suicide attack in Sri Lanka again in a battle that has been south asia's longest civil war. The cost of the conflict is constantly high with economic and social costs always being the chief concerns. What questions then can we ask?
Why such attacks? Why when the stakes for the country are so high that these two groups cannot reach a peace settlement? What is the true cost of a conflict that has lasted for decades?
There are never easy answers especially to problem whose roots lie in very different beliefs systems in each group that has solidified through lack of understanding and a mutual hate and need for retribution. Hopefully, we would be able to see some kind of resolution in our time or esle it is the people who will continue to suffer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7653945.stm
The tamil tigers have launched a suicide attack in Sri Lanka again in a battle that has been south asia's longest civil war. The cost of the conflict is constantly high with economic and social costs always being the chief concerns. What questions then can we ask?
Why such attacks? Why when the stakes for the country are so high that these two groups cannot reach a peace settlement? What is the true cost of a conflict that has lasted for decades?
There are never easy answers especially to problem whose roots lie in very different beliefs systems in each group that has solidified through lack of understanding and a mutual hate and need for retribution. Hopefully, we would be able to see some kind of resolution in our time or esle it is the people who will continue to suffer.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
World War II and Cold War
The external reasons for WWII are usually more commonly referred to the inaction of the British and French, the failures of the League of Nations, appeasement and probably the views of Russia and the way they thought they could form an alliance with Hitler. It is how the actions of those outside of Germany have contributed to the war by allowing Hitler's strength to grow unchecked.
There are many effects that rippled from the fact that Russia and USA were having an extremely strained and distrustful relationship, China becoming communist in 1949 fuelled american fears that the communists would try to take over the world. Russia=big, China=big and therefore there was a very real fear by USA that these countries could try to spread the communist system of government they so dreaded and hated.
This fear led to them taking a more pro-active role to support newly emerging democracies or weaker states that seemed vulnerable to the influences of communism. The Korean War is a result from this aspect of USA's foreign policy.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Reply to queries
Hello,
First, for Jonathan's question "How successful was Hitler's rule?"
Note: The best answers to this question are the ones that qualify the success first and then go on to explain the more central impact of his rule in an organised manner. For example, political, economic and social. I'll do an answer but you are welcome to improve on it yourself.:)
Hitler experienced great economic success during his rule but created an atmosphere of fear through his secret police, restricted the freedom of expression and controlled many aspects of social life for the Germans. Despite this, he was genuinely well-loved by many and managed to strengthen and expand Germany before his defeat in World War II. Hence he was successful in many aspects of governance as a leader to a large extent.
Economically, Hitler was quite a success. His policy of rearmament and public works jump started the German economy. Big businesses benefitted and unemployment was greatly reduced. He also created the National Labour service that built schools, hospitals and highways and expanded the Civil Service. The reintroduction of conscription and the expansion of the military also absorbed the unemployed especially when the army increased to 1.4 million men.
Labour conditions also improved slightly with the introduction of the German labour Front. This was the only trade union tried to introduce cheap holidays and cruises as well as a programme for workers to own cars.
Hitler was a popular and well-supported leader but this was due to his massive control over many aspects of social life. In education, students were thought Nazi beliefs and that the treaty of Versailles was evil and that Germany needed to expand. Youths were forced to join Nazi youth organisations. Radio stations were controlled by the Nazis and publications had to go through the approval of Ministry of Propaganda. Joseph Goebbels, was brilliant at orchestrating the control over culture and ensured that even movies were pro-Nazi and that Hitler's radio broadcast were heard by all Germans. Although this restricted the freedom of expression and access to information for Germans, it did help Hitler become a massively popular leader. The Nuremburg rallies that involved hundreds of Thousands of people were a massive show of power by the Nazis and helped them achieve the support of the people.
Politically, Hitler was a well supported leader of a party that by 1933 controlled a large portion of the reichstag. After he gets emergency powers given by the reichstag fire, he uses it to wipe out his opponents including the communists. The enabling act of 1933 allows him to ban all other political parties and establish his dictatorship. In a sense, he has ended the problem of proportional representation experienced bu the Weimar but in undesirable way. in the night of the long nights, he wipes out his own SA, the brown shirts and makes sure no one dares to challenge his rule. He does put in place a organized and very purposeful government but at the expense of all political freedom in Germany.
While Hitler experiences success, the social costs of his leadership is very high. Women and jews are forced out of jobs in order to reduce unemployment. Women are told to tend to just the family, church and children while jews are systematically removed from society and eventually slaughtered in the holocaust. 6 million would perish. Political opponents are killed off. Opposition to his rule are snubbed by the secret police and informants are encouraged. Even workers earned less although they worked longer hours and Germany and a massive trade inbalance in which they could not sell enough of their goods overseas.
Therefore, Hitler's rule might have been a success in terms of some its economic benefits and the genuine popularity of the man himself but it is a carefully engineered success with propaganda and expansionist plans fueling it. furthermore, many aspects of freedom in German life were restricted and many like women, workers and the jews suffered under his rule. Hence he is a success only in certain aspects of governance.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Model Answer: How successful
As requested by Alston here is a model answer of what a "how successful" type question will look like. Question: How successful was Stalin's leadership of Russia?
Stalin was a success to a great extent. He effectively modernised Russia through his five-year plans and introduced collectivisation. However, he used terror to make the people obey him and destroyed any politically opponents, drastically reducing the freedom of people in Russia.
He had success in modernising Russia but millions of peasants died in the process of agricultural modernisation.
Stalin took Russia from a backward state to a thriving modern state. His five-year plans increased resource production tremendously and Russia was producing its own iron, oil and steel. New factories like Magnitogorsk and other industries also were constructed. Many, were east of the Ural mountains.This industrialisation enabled it to fight Germany when they attacked. In the 1930s, free education, subsidised health care and leisure facilities like parks and gymnasiums were constructed to improve the lives of the Russians. Collectivisation also enabled Russia to modernise its farms by introducing tractors and machines.
However, there were failings in his leadership policies and decisions. Worker's conditions in the initial years of the five-year plans were horrible with dangerous and unhealthy conditions and long hours imposed. Many workers were also untrained, leading to spoilt machinery that could not be fixed. Furthermore, collectivisation led many farmers to burn or grow less crops causing a massive famine in which 10 million died. Many peasants, especially kulaks, were killed or sent to labor camps. Many of his political opponents were killed in his purges and there was no freedom of speech as anyone suspected of opposing him was arrested by the NKVD, his secret regime. HE also controlled education and culture, art and made sure people saw only positive images of him.
Hence, although Stalin's leadership of Russia was successful in many ways that he industrialised Russia and enabled her to defeat Germany, it was done at the expense of the workers and the killing of many peasants. His rule was brutal and he was responsible for both restricting the freedom of expression and the types of media people received as well as killing millions of peasants as a result of his plans as well as for keeping dissent against him in check.
Stalin was a success to a great extent. He effectively modernised Russia through his five-year plans and introduced collectivisation. However, he used terror to make the people obey him and destroyed any politically opponents, drastically reducing the freedom of people in Russia.
He had success in modernising Russia but millions of peasants died in the process of agricultural modernisation.
Stalin took Russia from a backward state to a thriving modern state. His five-year plans increased resource production tremendously and Russia was producing its own iron, oil and steel. New factories like Magnitogorsk and other industries also were constructed. Many, were east of the Ural mountains.This industrialisation enabled it to fight Germany when they attacked. In the 1930s, free education, subsidised health care and leisure facilities like parks and gymnasiums were constructed to improve the lives of the Russians. Collectivisation also enabled Russia to modernise its farms by introducing tractors and machines.
However, there were failings in his leadership policies and decisions. Worker's conditions in the initial years of the five-year plans were horrible with dangerous and unhealthy conditions and long hours imposed. Many workers were also untrained, leading to spoilt machinery that could not be fixed. Furthermore, collectivisation led many farmers to burn or grow less crops causing a massive famine in which 10 million died. Many peasants, especially kulaks, were killed or sent to labor camps. Many of his political opponents were killed in his purges and there was no freedom of speech as anyone suspected of opposing him was arrested by the NKVD, his secret regime. HE also controlled education and culture, art and made sure people saw only positive images of him.
Hence, although Stalin's leadership of Russia was successful in many ways that he industrialised Russia and enabled her to defeat Germany, it was done at the expense of the workers and the killing of many peasants. His rule was brutal and he was responsible for both restricting the freedom of expression and the types of media people received as well as killing millions of peasants as a result of his plans as well as for keeping dissent against him in check.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
SBQ- Surprised?
This post is done in response to the strange N level question that went "Are you surprised by what the source is saying? Explain your answer."
Now, unlike most questions, the skill this one is testing is not immediately apparent. Hence when encountering this type of question, it is necessary to take a sound grounded approach. Do it step by step.
1. You can try to guess at what the source is trying to test. Do ask yourself, how can I best answer this question with the skills that I have and plan your answer accordingly.
2. Remember, the goal is to answer the question always answer it first.
3. Engage the source. When you answer the question, remember to use evidence from the source to backup your response.
4. Do check your contextual knowledge and compare it to what the source is saying. Do this according to what the source is asking you. For eg: I am not surprised because I know that..... and this supports what the source says.
5. Check the source against what others are saying.
6. You can look to see if the source has a desired outcome.
It all depends on the question. The most important part is to actually engage the source using quotes.
Please post questions if you have any
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Japan vs China in early 20th century
There was an excellent question in class today asking about why Japan and China are antagonistic towards each other. There is quite a bit of back history about it and I'll just put down what I do remember and know.
China first. China has a history that dates back thousands of years through any dynasties and kingdoms. The most important one arguably was the Qin where the first emperor united China. Ironically, his reign lasted only 27 years and his dynasty collapses after that. China's dynasties have always gone through cycles of rising and falling. The last dynasty with an emperor was the Qing dynasty that lasted from 1644 til 1911. In the meantime, the Japanese had harassed the eastern seaboard of China and Korea even before this period.
The biggest cause for the fall of the dynasty in 1800s was the entry of Western powers into China and a series of rebellions, boxer, Taiping that helped weakened the government. The disastrous opium wars also sped up the demise of the dynasty while corruption and a resistance to accept the technology and knowledge of the West left china in a stagnant state to be carved up by people like France, Britain, Germany and of course Japan. these countries easily gained low taxes for trade and areas that they completely controlled (remember Japanese vs. Chinese Section?) due to China's inability to defend itself.
Sun yat-sen. Of all the reformers that emerged as a result of the decay of the dynasty, he has gone down in History as one of the most important. He had to go into exile because of persecution by the Qing but helped spread the message for change and raise funds to topple the Qing. In fact, when the revolution took place in 1911, he was not in China. His progressive thoughts and leadership helped inspire the revolution. The problem was that a thousands year old way of government will not disappear overnight and China was plunged into a feudal like warlord era after 1911.
Chiang Kai-shek succeeds Sun as leader of the Kuo Min Tang, the party which Sun forms to become the government but never quite does. However by 1929 and on, the warlords had been contained and China quite united under the banner of this government. This resurgence is what the Japanese feel would threaten their interest in Manchuria.
Japan-Has a culturally rich history that has similarities in the cycle of feuding kingdoms, unity and decay that China experiences. While medieval Japan was largely agricultural and insular, two things have persisted into modern Japan, a respect for the military and a military culture based on the older samurai honor codes that favors and values strength and loyalty.
Hence you have a situation where Japan due to internal reasons needs to have an aggressive foreign policy and is led by soldiers who believe in war to gain strength and empire and with an almost fanatic loyalty to the emperor. Their fear is that if China gets too strong, they will lose their hold on Manchuria and be expelled. Instead, they choose to consolidate their position by conquering Manchuria and deeply upsetting the Chinese in the process.
Of course, Chinese politics is very complex in this period and in the background of the growing strength of the KMT is the threat of the Chinese Communist Party trying to overthrow the KMT. But that is altogether an exciting but different part of the history of this period.
Hope this helps.
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial3.html#manchus
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
SEQ model answers.. as promised during class
Hello. I'll give general guidelines for SEQ explanations before I start.
Firstly your explanations always always need to be clear and concise with some specific examples and be able to answer the question using the example.
Secondly, round your answer with a strong concluding paragraph that weighs the factors and shows that either one is more important or all are inter-related and reliant on the other factors to work. This is the tough part. As I said, a summary will not do. You must make a stand on which is truly the most important factor and why.
For 1(a), possible last paragraph:
As Singapore is a Multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, managing perceptions of different races and ensuring equal treatment for all religious groups are essential in maintaining the balance. However, managing international threats is the most pressing as while religious and racial perceptions can be managed through developing common spaces and respecting minority rights, international threats are caused, trained and inspired by external organisations like Al Queda or the Jemaah Islamiyah(JI) in Indonesia which are not fully under our control. The communal tensions caused by terrorism are the most recent developments and more efforts are needed to bridge the doubts and misunderstandings caused by the threat of the JI.
For 1(b)
Developing a National Identity would still be the most effective way of managing multi-ethnic, multi-religious Singapore. This is because Singapore has many different races and religions. Even when given opportunities to interact, in Common Spaces, they might still stick to their own racial and religious groups after activities because of communal bonds. Furthermore, protecting minority rights only tackles the issue on the political front and equality amongst the races might not equate to good and open communication and relations between them. Hence developing a national identity is the factor that bonds Singaporeans ,despite our differences, together and fosters a sense of belonging that becomes the commonality between groups. It also would give groups more reason to protect the harmony of the country and develop open dialogue and communication to prevent communal tensions from harming our country.
Alternative 1 (b)
Common Spaces is the most effective. (quantifying part) As Singapore is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, the way we can get along is by developing respect and understanding of each ethnic group that can only come about through interaction and activity provided by common spaces. Most Singaporeans are still ambiguous or developing a sense of nation so that's still in the works and hence might not be effective. Protecting Minority Rights only works on the legal and social status aspects but does little to foster good relations between the races. Just because all rights are protected does not mean the communities get along. Hence, in order for there to be harmony, we must be able to have chances to interact and understand each other to develop good relations and respect and this is achieved through common spaces.
Hope this helps, please leave questions as comments.
Firstly your explanations always always need to be clear and concise with some specific examples and be able to answer the question using the example.
Secondly, round your answer with a strong concluding paragraph that weighs the factors and shows that either one is more important or all are inter-related and reliant on the other factors to work. This is the tough part. As I said, a summary will not do. You must make a stand on which is truly the most important factor and why.
For 1(a), possible last paragraph:
As Singapore is a Multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, managing perceptions of different races and ensuring equal treatment for all religious groups are essential in maintaining the balance. However, managing international threats is the most pressing as while religious and racial perceptions can be managed through developing common spaces and respecting minority rights, international threats are caused, trained and inspired by external organisations like Al Queda or the Jemaah Islamiyah(JI) in Indonesia which are not fully under our control. The communal tensions caused by terrorism are the most recent developments and more efforts are needed to bridge the doubts and misunderstandings caused by the threat of the JI.
For 1(b)
Developing a National Identity would still be the most effective way of managing multi-ethnic, multi-religious Singapore. This is because Singapore has many different races and religions. Even when given opportunities to interact, in Common Spaces, they might still stick to their own racial and religious groups after activities because of communal bonds. Furthermore, protecting minority rights only tackles the issue on the political front and equality amongst the races might not equate to good and open communication and relations between them. Hence developing a national identity is the factor that bonds Singaporeans ,despite our differences, together and fosters a sense of belonging that becomes the commonality between groups. It also would give groups more reason to protect the harmony of the country and develop open dialogue and communication to prevent communal tensions from harming our country.
Alternative 1 (b)
Common Spaces is the most effective. (quantifying part) As Singapore is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, the way we can get along is by developing respect and understanding of each ethnic group that can only come about through interaction and activity provided by common spaces. Most Singaporeans are still ambiguous or developing a sense of nation so that's still in the works and hence might not be effective. Protecting Minority Rights only works on the legal and social status aspects but does little to foster good relations between the races. Just because all rights are protected does not mean the communities get along. Hence, in order for there to be harmony, we must be able to have chances to interact and understand each other to develop good relations and respect and this is achieved through common spaces.
Hope this helps, please leave questions as comments.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Globalisation: Foreign Talent
I just realised that at least two large chapters in the SS syllabus deal with this highly debatable and sticky issue. Our prime minister came forward to say that in sports, there is nothing wrong in it as every country does it. That may be true, but even if many people do something, does that make it right?Check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7574379.stm
Tan Dawn Wei in the Straits Times was arguing that in age of Globalisation, citizenship is a very fluid thing. There are literally millions of people in the world who are living and working in places not of their birth. And like reasons our own ancestors came to this small island, people still move to find better opportunities and lives. to live better and for their children to live better. We cannot fault people for wanting that.
The issue then becomes one of loyalty, patriotism, nationhood and the integrity of sports. Many intangible concepts which are prized but are not easily defined. We, Singapore have been accused by others in the SEA games for fielding a China team and there is some truth to that. All our table-tennis girls are born in PRC.
This makes for a complex issue. We cannot fault them for wanting better opportunities by coming here. There is no question in that. But what we should expect are the accusations that we are buying our medals and incapable of producing our own. This statement has quite a strong element of truth in it and it is a deliberate policy on the part of the government. But, at the rate the immigration is going, the non-Singapore born in Singapore will make up half of the country and when that happens, fielding such teams is inevitable. This is happening all over the world and nothing can stop this tide.
For me, I think that the spirit of sports in a nation is the most important. Get people to like it, get people involved and slowly, somethings will come. In Singapore, sometimes we focus too much on results and not the process. Hopefully the youth games can change that. This is one issue to tackle, do we really need these players or could we slowly do well ourselves? That is the question we should try to answer as a nation.
Maybe our Olympic success is a true reflection of Singapore now. Achievement through new immigrants and the need for them in order to survive. One thing's for sure, our Singaporean identity is sure to be in caught up in the complexities of globalisation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7574379.stm
Tan Dawn Wei in the Straits Times was arguing that in age of Globalisation, citizenship is a very fluid thing. There are literally millions of people in the world who are living and working in places not of their birth. And like reasons our own ancestors came to this small island, people still move to find better opportunities and lives. to live better and for their children to live better. We cannot fault people for wanting that.
The issue then becomes one of loyalty, patriotism, nationhood and the integrity of sports. Many intangible concepts which are prized but are not easily defined. We, Singapore have been accused by others in the SEA games for fielding a China team and there is some truth to that. All our table-tennis girls are born in PRC.
This makes for a complex issue. We cannot fault them for wanting better opportunities by coming here. There is no question in that. But what we should expect are the accusations that we are buying our medals and incapable of producing our own. This statement has quite a strong element of truth in it and it is a deliberate policy on the part of the government. But, at the rate the immigration is going, the non-Singapore born in Singapore will make up half of the country and when that happens, fielding such teams is inevitable. This is happening all over the world and nothing can stop this tide.
For me, I think that the spirit of sports in a nation is the most important. Get people to like it, get people involved and slowly, somethings will come. In Singapore, sometimes we focus too much on results and not the process. Hopefully the youth games can change that. This is one issue to tackle, do we really need these players or could we slowly do well ourselves? That is the question we should try to answer as a nation.
Maybe our Olympic success is a true reflection of Singapore now. Achievement through new immigrants and the need for them in order to survive. One thing's for sure, our Singaporean identity is sure to be in caught up in the complexities of globalisation.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
World War II
So...Whose fault was it? Pointing fingers was never an easy job and you always have to think long and hard, evaluate all causes before you can reach a conclusion, which, usually is never straight forward.
Let's take a simple but morbid example. A man points a gun at another man points the trigger and fires. He kills the man. A week later he is arrested. He says that it was an argument and the gun misfired. The gun itself has gone absolutely missing. Untraceable. There is only one other witness who did not see the shooting but says that the murdered dude told him that he was going to start an argument to get himself killed. Question is: who is responsible for this man's death? Is it the arrested man, the witness, the gun or the man himself?
The truth is often murky and very often we must evaluate a situation based on what we know. One of the most cherished skills of a historian is being able to evaluate according to the evidences presented like a detective, forming a picture from the pieces of jigsaw.(hint: this is what you do in source-based). Some pieces smell iffy, some are useless, some slant the image according to what it wants to see. So you must sort through each piece, pick at it, dissect the meaning and see the nuances of what its trying to do. After all, humans are imperfect and every evidence presented by anyone comes with perspectives.
But I digress, think about this, when we truly evaluate any event of situation, we can follow the lines of logic but most of the time, we make value judgements on what is important and what is not. Even being practical involves a value judgement. So begs the question, what do we value the most? Is it money? Is it honor amongst friends? Is it the ability to do what's right regardless of the consequences? Or is it self preservation?
It is with these do we finally come to any type of conclusion.
Let's take a simple but morbid example. A man points a gun at another man points the trigger and fires. He kills the man. A week later he is arrested. He says that it was an argument and the gun misfired. The gun itself has gone absolutely missing. Untraceable. There is only one other witness who did not see the shooting but says that the murdered dude told him that he was going to start an argument to get himself killed. Question is: who is responsible for this man's death? Is it the arrested man, the witness, the gun or the man himself?
The truth is often murky and very often we must evaluate a situation based on what we know. One of the most cherished skills of a historian is being able to evaluate according to the evidences presented like a detective, forming a picture from the pieces of jigsaw.(hint: this is what you do in source-based). Some pieces smell iffy, some are useless, some slant the image according to what it wants to see. So you must sort through each piece, pick at it, dissect the meaning and see the nuances of what its trying to do. After all, humans are imperfect and every evidence presented by anyone comes with perspectives.
But I digress, think about this, when we truly evaluate any event of situation, we can follow the lines of logic but most of the time, we make value judgements on what is important and what is not. Even being practical involves a value judgement. So begs the question, what do we value the most? Is it money? Is it honor amongst friends? Is it the ability to do what's right regardless of the consequences? Or is it self preservation?
It is with these do we finally come to any type of conclusion.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Cold War
There are many issues regarding the Cold War. If you think really hard about it, it seems almost like a little boy's school yard brawl taken to a global scale. Which of course got a bit scary with the Cuban Missile Crisis. But thinking about it, if i could sum up all the reasons for the war, it should the lack of communications, and communal hysteria fueled by politicians with their own agendas for making people believe what they wanted them to believe.
Its a bit sad, but many of the veterans who fought in the Cold War on the American side were seldom welcomed back as heroes. Some were even villified as they returned. This was a huge change from the scenes of jubilation that greeted the vets returning from WWII. What changed? Was it that people realised that the war was just not worth it? Did some people think that they were fighting the war the wrong way? Of course. Esp during the 1960s and 1970s. But thats a whole different topic althogether.
If you look at the speeches of Kennedy and Krushev, we have to be thankful that these men were not as insane as they seemed to be and Kennedy especially, the global implications of both countries hitting out at each other. Its almost like an old western with two gunmen facing off but luckily, these gunmen are quite smart to know about the kind of gun they both had. Krushev came off worse and was replaced because of the way he handled the situation. Kennedy unfortunately was assasinated in 1963 by what was believed to be a lone gunman (which is another point of historical contention).
Looking back, whose fault is it? Why not ask Cuba? They should know. Castro is still alive. but they often get ignored in discussions. Too small an island. (sound familar?)
Strangely, we still are arguing about the crisis even til today and it is a hot topic that perhaps can never truly have one answer. So it boils down to our own value systems to make the judgement.
Its a bit sad, but many of the veterans who fought in the Cold War on the American side were seldom welcomed back as heroes. Some were even villified as they returned. This was a huge change from the scenes of jubilation that greeted the vets returning from WWII. What changed? Was it that people realised that the war was just not worth it? Did some people think that they were fighting the war the wrong way? Of course. Esp during the 1960s and 1970s. But thats a whole different topic althogether.
If you look at the speeches of Kennedy and Krushev, we have to be thankful that these men were not as insane as they seemed to be and Kennedy especially, the global implications of both countries hitting out at each other. Its almost like an old western with two gunmen facing off but luckily, these gunmen are quite smart to know about the kind of gun they both had. Krushev came off worse and was replaced because of the way he handled the situation. Kennedy unfortunately was assasinated in 1963 by what was believed to be a lone gunman (which is another point of historical contention).
Looking back, whose fault is it? Why not ask Cuba? They should know. Castro is still alive. but they often get ignored in discussions. Too small an island. (sound familar?)
Strangely, we still are arguing about the crisis even til today and it is a hot topic that perhaps can never truly have one answer. So it boils down to our own value systems to make the judgement.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Beginnings
The purposes of this blog are fairly simple.
I have been frustrated that I have little time to establish a history club and having being inspired by one of the speakers at the ICT conference, I decided this might be a good idea.
As an experiment, I shall leave this open to comments and participation for this year and see where it goes.
I will try to post each week and focus on the lessons that I taught during that week. What I'll definately do is bring up more critical questions and share my thoughts on pervasive or nagging issues on each topic.
This can be thought of as musings and discussions beyond the four walls of the classroom and is meant to be provocative and hopefully enriching.
If you do get thinking by the posts or post comments yourself. Then congratulations.
You are a member of the secret history club. Welcome. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
