Paid Editors on Wikipedia, should we be worried?

From 'the Conversation' online

As historians, the information you access is vital to recording an accurate depiction of past events. Therefore, if one of the world's most accessed sources of information - Wikipedia - starts to pay its editors, does this open the consumer to inaccurate accounts of the past and present information due to the interests of those financially supporting its editors? Read the article here and form your own opinions: CLICK HERE

Change or Continuity?

A NARRATIVE:
A northern force amasses huge power and support. It takes over the northern regions with little to no real military resistance. This northern force has a different ideology, a different world view, from the majority of the people in the country. The world watches on as people are given little opportunity to resist this northern pressure. As the northern force occupies new territory, it conducts propaganda campaigns to convince those it now controls that their world view is best - the only way! 

The northern force begins to threaten the security of the capital in the south. The government in the south was helped to take power in the past and has been supported by the most powerful country in the world. The Prime Minister of the government in the south represents the minority ethno-religious group/sect, which has caused sectarian violence and social disharmony for years. Other groups in the country, including this northern force, are resisting the government in the south and say that it does not represent the people as a whole, in other words, it has no legitimacy. Now, the most powerful nation in the world is asking the government in the south to listen to the people. However, the Prime Minister of the government in the south does not want to relinquish power, despite constant social pressure from within the country and the international community. The country is in the grips of a domestic crisis, and it could be argued that it has been caused in part by the past interference of the most powerful country in the world.

DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? compare this to the story of South Vietnam under the governance of the Diem regime and the road to war in the years after 1956. 

However, the question now becomes, 'will President Obama learn from the past and take the US into another drawn-out war, as LBJ did during the Vietnam War?' (Historical Continuity) Or, 'Will President Obama learn from the past and find a non-military solution - not sending in US soldiers to fight a drawn-out war? If so, what might this look like?

Watch the clip below and give your ideas in response to the above questions in the comment section below :)

HISTORICAL CONTINUITY, INTERESTS & ARGUMENTS: Do we adhere to the ethics of war any better than in the past?

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a modern phenomenon, which has its roots in the end of the 19th century. The conflict became an major international issue with the birth of the Israel state in 1948. The Arab-Israeli conflict has resulted in at least 5 major wars and a number of major conflicts. It has also been the source of two major Palestinian intifadas (uprisings).

Here is a map of where the conflict continues today - Gaza!

As we analyse the Vietnam War, we will be called on to make decisions about the ethics of war, or whether they exist at all. One thing for certain is that the question over ethical or just warfare is not relegated to events of the past. Today the Arab-Israeli conflict continues as Palestinians in Gaza continue to feel oppressed by the continued expansion of the Israeli state (especially in the West Bank). Israel claims that the governing body in Gaza, Hamas, are terrorists that use civilians as human shields to fight for their independence against the expansion of Israel... and today in 2014 the conflict still continues - over 50 years since the birth of the Israel state in 1948.

View the following clip where a commentator/observer of the recent Israeli bombing of a United Nations (UN) school in Gaza gives his STANDPOINT/PERSPECTIVE. The school in Gaza was understood by both sides of the conflict to be a UN safe haven for internally displaced Palestinians. The argument from the Israelis is that these schools, despite being UN safe havens in Gaza, have been found to house hidden terrorist rockets belonging to Hamas. The question then beckons, however, over the Israeli MOTIVE. It is well summed up by the BBC reporter below stating, 'even if there had been rockets hidden in this school, is this a justification for a direct hit? What you would be accusing [the Israelis] of ... is the direct targeting of a school where there are 3300 people."

The UN Secretary General has stated that over 1000 people have been killed in the conflict, mostly women and children. Now listen to commentators from both sides of the conflict and draw your own conclusions on the ethical grounds on which Israel is waging war in Gaza. Both sides are accusing each other of committing war crimes. Can you conclude that one side has a stronger argument? Or, considering past study of historical events and considering these contemporary episodes, is there such a thing as a 'war crime' in events such as these where chaos prevails and rational actors seemingly do irrational things? Post your comments and thoughts below.

Iraq... Is the US finally learning from its mistakes in Vietnam?

Writing in 1999, former US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara claimed that the hope of American victory in Vietnam had been 'an illusion - a dangerous illusion if acted upon in future US conflicts' (McNamara 1999, p.318). As sectarian violence heats up in Iraq and they move towards, what some are terming, an inevitable civil war, is the US going to learn from its mistakes in Vietnam as it moves forward in the decision making over whether to engage in the conflict? Some might argue that if they do not intervene, all that was done in the past was for nothing as terrorist networks gain more control within Iraq. Others would argue that it was never the business of the US in 2003, and it is surely not now, even though much of the sectarian violence can be attributed to the the earlier Iraq War.

But what do you think? Read the following news accounts and make your own judgement:

The Newyorker: Obama to Iraq: Your Problem Now

USA Today: US Moving Aircraft Carrier Closer to Iraq

BBC: Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis'

Cyprus Mail: Iraq cleric issues Shia call to arms

Draft submission information

Hi all. Can you make sure that you note the necessary details on the draft - name, PC, teacher - so that it can be attributed to you, and the feedback can be better tailored to you. 

For those that are submitting via the Google Drive folder, I will place a sub-folder for your drafts, so that it separates them from the plans. I will also place your detailed feedback sheets into the folder for you to access at your convenience. 

Those that submit via email, I will reply to you with feedback via email.

Thanks,

Mr S

Further escalation in Ukraine

Further escalation in the Ukraine as President Putin plans to annex the Crimea and incorporate it within Russia -  the first European annexation since WWII.

If you are unsure exactly about where the Crimea is, below is a map for you to look at. You'll notice that Yalta (the site of the first post-WWII conference by the 'Big 3' in February 1945 and arguably the beginning of the Cold War) is in the Crimea. Where would you place the Crimea - as Ukrainian sovereign territory or Russian?

Here is a quick one minute bite of the situation at present according to the New York Times...

From your studies so far of conflict and geopolitics, what might this conflict escalation mean for the international community?

Here is further analysis of the recent developments in the Ukraine from the BBC: ARTICLE LINK

The Ukraine issue explained as only John Green can

Thanks Lillie for sharing this wonderfully manic (as only John Green does) explanation of the Ukraine issue... it certainly sheds light on the subject and offers the opportunity or two for a giggle as we learn more about this very serious modern conflict relating to the Cold War era through the 'John Green' lens/perspective.

Also, some of the comments on the actual YouTube page are quite interesting too... you might want to check them out.