Of the selected events (The Lewis and Clark Expedition and The California Gold Rush) The California Gold Rush was the most impactful on Westward Expansion during 1800-1848. The expedition of Lewis and Clark also had a specific impact on this event, but the process taking place in the western lands was not fast.
The tour proceeded slowly due to cold winters, climate, and challenging conditions. The California gold rush proved to be a storm over the expedition as it allowed large numbers of people to come to San Francisco to mine gold. However, the events were not accompanied by purely economic changes: Conflicts between the settlers and American Indians escalated to horrific violence when gold was discovered on American Indian land in California (Myers, 2016, p. 29). Overall, the California Gold Rush had significantly impacted the Wests economy, ecology, and urbanization.
The ideology of Manifest Destiny, in turn, is well shown in the historical event associated with the expeditions of Lewis and Clark. Their purpose was to discover the commercial possibilities of the new land and, most importantly, potential trade routes (Corbett et al., 2014, para. 19).
They do not show cruelty and rudeness, and the Indians welcome them, although they do not always understand the intentions of white people. Lewis and Clarke are not warriors, but their expansionism and conquest go smoothly through compromises and offer the illusion of choice. It is similar to Manifest Destinys subsequent association with US foreign policy, rooted in soft influence through trade and the media, and always contained calls for peace, cooperation, and democracy. In the situation with the Lewis and Clark expedition, westward expansion is explained and justified by economic benefits and market diversity.
References
Corbett, P. S., Janssen, V., Lund, J. M., Pfannestiel, T., Waskiewicz, S., & Vickery, P. (2014). U.S. History. OpenStax. Web.
Myers, L. (2016). What affects have Discovery , Westward Expansion , and Manifest Destiny had on the indigenous peoples of North America and museum cultures today? [Masters Thesis, University of Oklahoma]. Web.
A number of different professors worked out a range of theories that explain why people have been unleashing wars for such a long time. People are at war against each other because of intolerance, hatred, religious differences, non-acceptance of other views, etc. One of the main and dramatic points is that people have been using all possible methods to achieve the goal, without giving a thorough consideration about aftermaths and consequences. Professors Winthrop D. Jordan and Charles Johnson, in their works, show their own considerations about the aftermaths after the Civil War and Americas Reconstruction in 1865-1890.
To begin with, it is common knowledge that wars cause destruction, depression, economic and political stagnation, corruption. On the other hand, the Civil War gave people hope that changes would come and their lives would be improved in many ways. Charles R. Johnson admits that African Americans had more at stake in the wars outcome than any other (Johnson 238). After the Civil war was ended, slavery was finally prohibited. Peoples main task was to rebuild the ruined South, as everything there was burnt and destroyed. History knows this process as Reconstruction. The most challenging points of Reconstruction were improving the South in terms of political, economic and social situations. Although these plans were not fully implemented into life, their realization, on the whole, had positive effects. The south did not recover fully, but most acute problems of the postwar period were solved. The government passed laws and introduced amendments the aim of which was to protect the rights of former slaves. Though the law was put into effect, in fact, it gave nothing to people of color, who had been enslaved. Many black people still could not vote; they were limited in chances to get a good job; they were pushed to live in special neighborhoods. In W.D. Jordans opinion this was racial slavery in a free society (Jordan 65). There was also another problem: it was hard for white to change their mentality and to realize that they are not superior to black people. The white southern population refused to accept black people as their equals. People of color were not economically protected. This was predominantly caused by sharecropping between whites. Hence, there was no choice for the black people, but again to start working for the southern whites. Thus, Reconstruction did not totally recover the South, but to some extent, it improved its conditions.
To sum it up, professors Winthrop D. Jordan and Charles Johnson in their works The White Mans Burden and Africans in America: Americas Journey Through Slavery explore the aftermaths of the so-called Reconstruction . It is clearly seen from their research papers how despite the good reasons for Reconstruction it mainly suffered a defeat. The white population was simply not ready to accept people of color and treat them as equals. Even though the law that gave freedom to former slaves, was not completely put into effect, it is still can be considered as one of the prominent steps, when people realized that slavery is a huge mistake, that should never be made again. Reconstruction also was the first step in the introduction of equality and freedom, both social and political. It made the nation feel reunited. It is an important part of US history and it even affects our lives today; without Reconstruction, the world is different now.
Works Cited
Johnson, Charles R. Smith, Patricia. Africans in America: Americas Journey Through Slavery. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1998.
Jordan, Winthrop D. The White Mans Burden. Historical Origins of Racism in the United States. Oxford University Press, 1974.
The topic of the essay From Divided to United during American War in Vietnam is the war in Vietnam and the perception of it by the American people. In the essay, the author argues that Martin Luther King Jr. fought not only for the civil rights of people in the United States but also condemned the violence that this state imposed on other nations. The essay explores the topic in great detail, however, some changes can further improve it.
From a readers perspective, some parts of the essay require additional explanation, for example, the phrase even so, King worried he should say more. Here, it is unclear what King would want to say to elaborate on his idea that the United States had dirty hands. Additionally, it would be better to separate some long paragraphs into smaller ones and divide the ideas presented in them, for example, paragraph three, which has about five hundred words. To conclude, this essay explores the war in Vietnam in great detail and provides sufficient evidence to support the argument, but some changes can be made to the way the information is presented.
The reason for the military conflict between the United States and Spain was the American governments support for the Cubans long battle for independence from the Spanish crown. The US invasion of Cuba became evident when the USS Maine sank under mysterious conditions in the waters of Havana. Around the same time, in February 1898, hasty preparations for war began, while the Spaniards were accused in absentia of undermining the battleship (Mortenson & Springer, 2019). In general, one can talk about a long-term political game with Spain, in which several provocations tightened relations with the country on the eve of the war.
The liberation of Cuba seemed like a financially attractive prospect for the US and provided strategic advantages. In addition, the American empire was then just gaining momentum and already had a successful experience in appropriating other territories of the Western Hemisphere (Kagan, 2019). The American government portrayed the unleashed war as a battle for the interests of Cuba and relied on the facts of human rights violations to legitimize military action.
In April, a ten-week war began in which the United States defeated the Spanish army and navy. Under the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the United States gained control of the island. In 1899, the island was occupied, and a few years later, the government received permission to place naval bases. The position of the American government is technically just, but in essence, it turns out to be a less cruel form of occupation of the island. Using the facts of the oppression of the Cuban population, the United States enlisted the support of the rebel movement. It acquired the moral right to occupy the territory for its purposes.
References
Kagan, R. L. (2019). The Spanish craze: Americas fascination with the Hispanic world, 1779-1939. University of Nebraska.
Mortenson, C. R., & Springer, P. J. (2019). Daily life of U.S. soldiers: From the American revolution to the Iraq war. ABC-CLIO.
Yugoslavias break up in 1991 is a complex politics-driven phenomenon that requires an understanding of the historical events of Yugoslavia which dates back to the early 19th century. Though the territory had inhabitants from different regions with different religious and ethnic backgrounds as early as the 15th century, Yugoslavia did not exist until 1918 when it was formed as a Kingdom and later became a socialist federal republic under Titos rule after Second World War.
According to the constitution created at that time, Yugoslavia became a federation with six republics: Bosnia-Hercegovina, Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Serbia. Serbia had two provinces: Kosovo and Vojvodina. Bosnia-Hercegovina was the most ethnically diverse and the poorest of all the republics. But the big question remains, why was the break-up of Yugoslavia, a once communist state followed by a series of ethnic conflicts? That the breakup of Yugoslavia made the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia-Hercegovina inevitable is also another fact that also needs clear illustrations to justify. This essay, therefore, seeks to address these questions by first looking at the possible causes of Yugoslavias breakup. It also goes further to establish the relationship between Yugoslavias disintegration and the Bosnian war.
The events that finally led to the break up of Yugoslavia followed by the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina became more pronounced after Josip Broz Titos death in 1980. By 1990, Yugoslavia was faced with many problems including foreign debts, unemployment, and inflation. Of great importance are the political problems associated with nationalistic strong feelings that created the crisis in Yugoslavia. Zvonimir Baletic (1994) argues that Serbia played a major part in the break-up. From the time it was adopted, the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution was fiercely disputed by Serbian nationalist politicians on basis of its federal element, especially the autonomy granted to Vojvodina and Kosovo. It was these politicians who composed a memorandum in 1986 designing a framework for the formation of Greater Serbia clearly describing a political union plan for all the Serbs within and without Serbia borders. This was a strategy for Yugoslavias destruction.
The enactment of this policy was followed by the formation of populist and nationalistic movements, which comprised members from the Serbian League of Communists. The main aim of these politicians was to convert Serbia into a Unitarian state whose central authority applies to the entire region inhabited by Serbs and abolish the autonomous status of Vojvodina and Kosovo. They achieved this by enacting a new constitution in 1989. Serbians then used this constitutional enactment in their favor giving the federation a big blow. Their first attempt was to conquer Serbian minorities in Croatia, an attempt that is believed to have caused the early 1991 war (Zvonimir Baletic, 1994).
According to Burg, S. L and, Shoup, P. S (2000), the end of Cold the War in 1989 led to the disintegration of Communist federations of the Soviet Union including Yugoslavia and the other nations in Eastern Europe. The break up of these federations resulted in bloody civil wars both in the former Soviet Union and in the former Yugoslavia. The most destructive and costly in human life was the protracted civil war in the former Communist republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, constituted in 1945 as a constituent nation of Yugoslavia.
The disintegration of Yugoslavia reached its final stages when self-determination rights were accorded to all nations by the international powers leaving out Serbia which preferred to continue being in Yugoslavia. The nations that seceded from Yugoslavia were then granted independence without fulfilling the stipulated criteria for recognition in what critiques referred to as a clear violation of inviolability principles guarding international borders of independent countries. It is therefore clear that the breakup of Yugoslavia was politically driven. Having looked at the possible causes of Yugoslavias disintegration, the remaining parts of this essay address the relationship between this breakup and the Civil war experienced in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
The 1992-1995 bloody war in Bosnia-Hercegovina was caused by many factors including the breakup of Yugoslavia. Burg, S. L, and Shoup, P. S in their book The war in Bosnia-Hercegovina: Ethnic conflict and international intervention also summarized them to include; inter-ethnic antagonism history; ethnic domination pattern; the contemporary inter-ethnic competition perception as a zero compromise game; an electoral phenomenon masked with nationalism that brought to power nationalistic forces, and the existence of inadequate political arrangements for moderating their behavior; the existence of completion in claims to power over territory; a settlement pattern that could be easily overtaken by secession; and the role played by outside sponsorship for extremist politics (Burg, S. L, and Shoup, P. S 2000). All these factors became prominent only after Yugoslavias disintegration leaving no doubt that the Bosnian war was to a greater extent the result of this unfortunate dissolution of this federation. To justify this, I illustrate some key issues which clearly explain how the break up of Yugoslavia impacted Bosnia-Hercegovina making the war inevitable as follows.
First was the issue of nationalism. Nationalism ideology masked with ethnicity broke out in Yugoslavia immediately after Tito died in 1981. The crisis in Yugoslavia started with the weakening of the communist system by the nationalists who instead were determined to spread their nationalist ideologies. Savich, K (2002) perceived the Bosnian conflict as a creation of three majors. Nationalist politicians capitalized on the feelings of political animosities based on ethnic and religious differences with some exaggeration when they needed to create a power base. This resulted in a crisis that was unstoppable, definitely causing the breakup of Yugoslavia. According to James Graham (2000), Yugoslavia was for a long time an ethnic melting ground where great religions and civilizations have met.
The death of Tito in 1980 coupled with the demise of the Cold War and the decline of pluralist ideology in most parts of Europe in the 1980s severely weakened Yugoslavias important unifying factors. Nationalist politicians then capitalized on this situation and divided the federation based on religion. Neven Andjelic refuted this fact when criticizing Huntingtons theory of the clash of civilizations. He argued that what most authors referred to as ethnic hatred was not widespread in Bosnian society during Titos reign thus does not have any basis in medieval history. According to him, there was so much co-existence and mutual understanding between the diverse ethnic groups than ethnic animosities. He however acknowledges the fact that Yugoslavias breakup made the Bosnian war inevitable stating that the post-second world war Yugoslavia was Titos Yugoslavia, without him, Yugoslavia could not function and had no option but to be dissolved.
The dissolution of Yugoslavia was followed by the quest for territorial boundaries which was pursued under ethno-nationalist interests that became the main cause of conflict first in Croatia then Bosnia (Neven Andjelic 2003). This ideology made the situation worse in Bosnia-Hercegovina, a tri-ethnic state. Mark Mazower (1997) views the breakup of Yugoslavia which precipitated the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia-Hercegovina as an ethnic driven process built around nationalism ideologies and the historical events that befell Serbia during the Second World War. In his view, nationalism, after Yugoslavias disintegration, capitalized on the existing ethnic differences to bring tensions, a situation which undoubtedly resulted in the experienced conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Bosnia-Hercegovina had the greatest religious mix mainly composed of Muslims (Bosniaks), Eastern orthodox (Bosnian Serbs) and, Roman Catholics (Bosnian Croats) forming a tri-ethnic coalition government with mutual respect. With the onset of nationalistic ideologies, the Muslim Bosnians felt a bit threatened since they had no links with Serbia. They thus encouraged the old Bosnian pluralist society for their survival in Bosnia. The feelings of ethnic differences cultivated by nationalist politicians mainly in Serbia mirrored well during independence arrangements in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Each ethnic group presented its agenda. Savich K considers the exclusive political and national agendas of the three communities-Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Croats- as the main cause of the war. Bosnian Muslims wanted to break from Yugoslavia but maintain all the borders and political structure as existed in the federation. Bosnian Serbs on the other hand preferred to remain in the federation while Bosnian Croats wanted to first break out from Yugoslavia then create Herceg-Bosna, a mini-state that would unite with Croatia. (Savich K, 2002). This created a conflict of interest and civil war became inevitable.
This situation was made worse by the ill-fated independence referendum of 1992 which delivered an overwhelming vote but was boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs who voted earlier in a referendum to opting that Bosnia remains part of Yugoslavia. This marked the onset of civil war as Bosnian Serbs, with the support of neighboring Serbia, responded with an armed force to petition Bosnia along religious/ethnic lines to create a greater Serbia . Bosnian Serbs rejected the referendum results just because they could not imagine being part of a Muslim-dominated Bosnia, a clear show of nationalism. Rusmir Mahmutcehajic viewed this conflict as a result of a broad process that included Yugoslavias collapse in the late 1980s. In his journal article, he argues that the origins of Bosnia-Herzegovina war lie in the tri-ethnic nationalist projects, their relationship and their linkages to outside world forces. Mahmutcehajic (1999).
Nationalism was a product of Yugoslavias breakup. If only communist was encouraged as opposed to nationalism, all the three ethnic groups would have lived united as they did before the break up of Yugoslavia and the civil war would have been avoided.
The second was the territorial issue. The situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina was a bit difficult following the breakup of Yugoslavia. Territorial quest was intertwined with ethnicity and external influence from the neighboring states. According to reports from Yugoslavias international criminal tribunal, Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro as well as Croatia were all involved in the conflict. Both the Serbian and Croatian presidents had arranged to annex Bosnia between themselves. Bosnian Serbs aided by the Serbian Yugoslav army then took advantage of the situation and pitched a power base at Sarajevo. This was then followed by the brutal and merciless campaigns of ethnic cleansing targeted at the Muslims.
Bosnian Croats also started carving out their own territory with the support of Croatia and finally the civil war became inevitable. This was definitely a result of Yugoslavias disintegration followed by the quest by these states to conquer greater regions. This clearly made the experienced civil war inevitable since Bosnian Muslims, the major ethnic group, would not sit back and watch their country being annexed along ethnic lines. This war was therefore a civil war between those who favored the survival of multi-ethnic society with its democratic rights and old tradition of statehood on one hand and those who were possessed with nationalism hence would no longer co-exist with other ethnic communities. Alan Fogelquist (1995) in his article, Yugoslav breakup, and Bosnia-Hercegovina War: implications for Kosovo described this war as, having no relationship with any perceived ideological struggle between Islamic fundamentalism and Western civilization.
Neither is it the result of any everlasting and unsolvable animosities between Catholic, Orthodox Bosnians, and Muslim, but, rather, of the political patterns and arrangements of political leaders in the adjacent aggressor states and their local allies who have deliberately manufactured and stimulated antagonism between Bosnians of different ethnic or religious origin . It is believed that this conflict was mainly aggravated by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevics nationalist quest to create a greater Serbia . This started by reclaiming the Serbs minorities in Croatia but later on spread out to Bosnia.
Fogelquest confirms this by stating that the war in Bosnia was rather a Serbian war of aggression resulting from the break up of Yugoslavia and the quest to create a greater Serbia comprising only one ethnic group, the Serbs. Rogel C (2004) also confirms this arguing that the post-second world war political arrangements of Yugoslavia seemed to have oppressed the Serbian nationalists. They, therefore, capitalized on post-Tito policy to create a Greater Serbia by reclaiming the territories held by Bosnian Serbs as well as Croatian Serbs. They managed this by spreading nationalistic ideologies to Bosnian Serbs and turning them against the other ethnic communities in Bosnia. This only revived the political animosities that Tito managed to put aside when he created a socialist Yugoslavia state. With such animosities majority of individual states pursued their independence leading to the breakup of Yugoslavia.
With the break up of Yugoslavia, Serbian nationalists then started reclaiming territories occupied by Bosnian Serbs. This resulted in a bloodshed genocide as the Bosniaks also fort to save their country. In simple terms, this conflict was about those who wanted an independent Bosnian state and those who wanted to remain part of Yugoslavia. Art J.R, and Waltz (2003) in their book the use of force views the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina as involving competing and conflicting claims to ethnical self-determination expressed as demands for independence on the one part of the three major national groups in the republic, as well as the conflicting territorial ambitions and competing for geostatic interests of two neighboring states engaged in an ongoing war over the definition of their respective borders.
Closely link to territorial conquest was political power motivations. This was mainly pursued by the nationalist political elites who were more interested in concentrating power within them. It was against this backdrop that most states fought for their independence leading to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. It is also believed that Serbs quest to form a Greater Serbia was also power-based. Eventually, this power concept spilled over to Bosnia-Hercegovina making the civil war inevitable since each individual ethnic group wanted to concentrate power within them. Steven L. Burg confirms this by stating that the Bosnian war was an ethnic conflict based on the struggle for mobilized groups for greater power-be it equality within their existing state, or the establishment of an independent state and this was a common phenomenon in the collapse of most communist societies of Europe.
Political pluralism which advocated for the existence of multi-parties spread by the nationalists during Slobodan Miloaevis reign was another key issue. Most republics in Yugoslavia held elections in 1990 and the results threatened the federations survival. Communist parties were defeated by nationalist parties. This ideology clearly manifested itself during Bosnia-Hercegovinas first and only election. Each community had their individual parties and citizens voted according to their national affiliation. This situation was however made worse when victorious nationalist parties in the neighboring states extended beyond their borders. Croatian Democratic Union led by Franjo Tudjmans opened alliances for Bosnian Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Vojvodina. Likewise, the Bosnian Serbs and Serbs minority in Croatia developed local alliances of the Serbian Democratic Party guided from Belgrade. With these supports, nationalist parties became stronger, main issues of national development were put aside and ethnicity was advocated for more than ever. This definitely revived the long-forgotten ethnic animosities and formed a breeding ground for the civil war (Burg, S. L, and Shoup, P. S 2000).
Conclusion
The break up of Yugoslavia in 1991 was a politically driven phenomenon marked by ethnic animosities coupled with nationalist ideologies and external forces geared towards territorial conquest and political power motivations. The replacement of Titos socialist ideologies with nationalist ideologies was not only dangerous to the survival of Yugoslavia as a federation but also the existence of Bosnia-Hercegovina as a tri-ethnic state. It is clear from this essay that Yugoslavias disintegration sealed the unfortunate fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina- one republic whose survival greatly depended upon Yugoslavias continued existence as a multinational communist state. Although the Bosnian war would have been a result of many playing factors, this essay has succeeded in justifying the fact that Yugoslavias disintegration made this war inevitable. The disintegration of Yugoslavia followed by the quest for a Greater Serbia to a greater extent played a major role in causing ethnic conflicts in some states in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Hercegovina was no exception.
Bibliography
Andjelic, N. (2003) Bosnia-Hercegovina: The end of a legacy, Routledge, New York.
Art, R. J and Waltz, K. N (2003), The use of force: Military power and international politics, 6th ed. Rowman and Littlefield, New York.
Asch , J. Beth and Courtland, Reichmann (1994), Emigration and Its Effects on the Sending Country, Rand Corporation.
Burg, S. L and Shoup, P. S (2000), The war in Bosnia-Hercegovina: Ethnic conflict and international intervention. M.E Sharpe, New York.
Dragosavljevic, Angelija (1993), Slobodan Milosevic: A Study in Charismatic Leadership and Its Distortions 1987-1992, Australian National University Press, Canberra.
Fogelquist, F. Alan, (1995) The Yugoslav Breakup and the War in Bosnia- Hercegovina: Implications for Kosovo, Eurasia Research Centre.
Graham, James (2000), The break up violent breakup of Yugoslavia. Web.
Mahmutcehajic, Rusmir (1999), The war against Bosnia-Herzegovina, East European Quarterly, vol. 33.
Mazower, M. (1997), Ethnicity and War in the Balkans, a research paper, American National Humanities Centre.
Rogel, Carole (2004), The breakup of Yugoslavia and its aftermath. New left review vol. 9.
Savich, K (2002), The origins and causes of Bosnia civil war 1992-1995: The Case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, ERIC Digest.
Zvonimir, Baletic et al (1994), Croatia between Aggression and peace. AGM,Zagreb. Web.
The Zulu kingdom was created by Shaka Kasenzagakhana. It lasted about six decades until it met with the might of the imperial British Empire. It took about six months for the kingdom to be completely shattered which required a complete military campaign, the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879. The Zulu nation had been invaded by Voortrekkers and up to the time it was subdued by the British, it had fought numerous battles and even when the Zulu finally lost to the British, they had won the same battles against them, testifying to the strength of the Zulu army.
The full campaign of the British army involved 3 invading columns. The central column was almost completely uninhibited at the battle of Isandlwana in a battle viewed as a great military disaster for the British. The British redcoats under lord Chelmsford had expected the hit and run tactics that Lord Chelmsford had experienced in other African countries. Chelmsford accompanied the central column as they advanced into Zululand and crossed the Tugelo River at Forkes drift.
The supplies for the entire column were carried in ox carts, pulled by about 20 oxen. The pace was slow due to the hilly nature of the country, the absence of roads, and because a lot of time had to be spent feeding and caring for the oxen. In addition, it was necessary to picket hilltops and scout the country for Zulus in ambush. The wetness due to heavy rain caused risks to swell making progress when slaves (www.britishbattes.com/zulu-war lisandarkra.htm)
Chelmsford decided to head for Isandlwana a hill that resembles a sphinx. Against advice, Lord Chelmsford camped along the hills slopes. Major Dartnell in his reconnaissance of the direction of advance of the British army met with the Zulu army and due to their strength he could not disengage until the following day, 22nd January 1879 (Knight, 1992).
Upon receiving Dartnells intelligence, Chelmsford decided to advance to defeat the Zulu in a great battle with a great force of the British army. Chelmsford advanced to meet Dartnell but found that the Zulu had disappeared. The first battalion of the 24th foot had been left in the camp and colonel Danford had been ordered to take his column to reinforce the camp.
The Zulus had bypassed Chelmsford and advanced to Isandlwana when Chelmsford received news of a threat to the camp, he ordered Colonel Pulleine to break camp. Conolel Dunford went in search of the Zulu warriors, whom he found unexpectedly in a fold in the ground. The sudden appearance of colonel Dunford and his troops forced the Zulu army to respond immediately by forming as much as they could, their traditional form of assault, the left horn, the central chest of the attack, and the right horn.
The main Zulu frontal assault appeared over the ridge causing some of the companies to withdraw as they paused to fire. The horns of the Zulu posed a greater danger to the British line as they found the end of the British line and enveloped it. The companies of the 24th and NNI could not prevent this envelopment and Dunford men on the right flank ran out of ammunition and had to go back to camp leaving the right flank open. The Zulu chiefs grabbed the opportunity and encouraged the chest warriors to revamp their attack leading to the British troops falling back on the encampment.
As the lives broke up, the British soldiers formed groups that fought Zulus until they had no more ammunition. Many men were caught at the Tuget River, It is possible that natives from Natal; came to the river and killed British soldiers. Most of the soldiers who survived were those on horseback. In total the battle resulted in the death of 52 British officers and 806 non-commissioned officers and 471 Africans who were fighting for the British. Among the Zulu, about 2000 of them died both on the field and from wounds sustained in battle. The Zulu also got an estimated 1000 rifles and the whole reserve ammunition supply of the column. The British army had an initial force of 1200 men while the Zulus were around 12000. They were armed with the breach loading single short Martini Henry rifle and bayonet .
The regiments of the Zulu warriors were formed by age with shield and stabbing spear (the assegai) as the main equipment. The military strategy employed by the Zulu was the Horns of the beast devised by Shaka. The frontal assault was delivered by the main body of the army; the horns spread out and delivered the second attack in the enemys rear or the sides which often was fatal. The Zulu king, Cetshwayo had brought firearms so by the time war broke out the Zulus had many muskets and rifles but of poor quality and the Zulu had poor skills in their use.
The impression one gets from reading Churchills account of the battle of Omdurman is that the African armies were easy to vanquish. This, as shown by the initial defeat of the British in the Anglo-Zulu war was quite the opposite. This can be mainly attributed to the military strategy of the Zulu and also the fact that lord Chelmsford had little familiarity with the technique of the Zulu.
Though the early campaigns against the Zulu went wrong the British eventually won the war. The defeat at Isandlwana led the British soldiers to perceive the Zulu army in a different light.
The British soldiers began to view them as a disciplined, army with controlled savagery rather than a group of part-time soldiers who were herdsmen. This defeat, however, ensured that the Zulu kingdom would be eventually destroyed. The Zulu had no real defense against the retaliation of the British who had amassed firepower and had professional British soldiers while they (the Zulu) had the stabbing spear as their primary tool of offense and defense.
The success at Isandlwana caused the Zulu army to be exhausted and as such Cetshwayo could not mount a counteroffensive into Natal. This provided lord Chelmsford with an opportunity to regroup. The empire provided South Africa with British troops and Chelmsford ordered the march of a column to aid Colonel Pearsons men at Eshowe who had been besieged for three months. The column was ordered to make a diversionary attack at a Zulu stronghold, Hlobane Mountain. They however had to scatter because of the unexpected arrival of the main Zulu army. The following day the Zulu army attacked the camp at Khambula but was defeated. The two defeats of the Zulu army in different parts of the country within a short period led to demoralization within the Zulu army. Chelmsford organized his forces and pressed on towards Ulundi where they arrived towards the end of June. Ulundi was forced and the King fled but was later captured and exiled in Cape Town. The defeat at Ulundi marked the end of the war and Zululand was divided into thirteen administrative areas under pro-British chiefs. This led to years of civil war, a strategy of the British.
The British through unwarranted acts of aggression provoked the Anglo-Zulu war. In the 1840s Natal, a British colony was established. It bordered the southern parts of Zululand. The British however continued to move forward to consolidate control of all the British colonies in the region and bring the Boer republics and other African groups under British control.
The overall goal was the implementation of economic development. According to Sir Henry Bartle Frere, British High Commissions in South Africa, Zululand threatened this policy. He, therefore, started a quarrel assuming that the Zulu army would be easily trampled by the mightier British Imperial army.
The war initially did not go well for the British because they underestimated the Zulu army. The army was brave and highly organized and outmaneuvered and outfought the British army. They also had significantly high numbers than their opponents. Theres, however, a brief victory was. The British had superior firearms and ammunition. In addition, they could regroup faster than the Zulu army. The provisioning system of the British army was much advanced than that of the Zulu (Knight, 1999).
Though the technique of the Zulu worked in Isandlwana, it sometimes failed to work like in Khambula and Ulindi and other previous battles with the Boers. When the frontal assault experienced a shattering attack, many times the reserve attack would be unable to do anything constructive. For example the Zulu after becoming exhausted against British firepower in Khambula, there were very few Zulu reserves available to provide a significant defense. Their traditional formation though a great strength was also a great area of weakness especially in the face of concentrated firepower. Commanding and controlling the army was especially difficult when the horns and chests were in motion. The Zulu also made errors in strategy because they did not take advantage of their mobility by attempting to attack British supply lines or the British rear area of Natal (Knight, 1999).
The greatest assets of the Zulu army, morale unit leadership, numbers, and mobility helped them in various encounters with the British but overall were not sufficient to win the war. The setting up of fortifications by the British empowered them further which led to great losses when the Zulu attacked well-defended camps (Knight, 1999).
The honor was also a motivating factor for the Zulu army. This was tied to morale and discipline. During the battle at Isandlwana, the advance of the Zulu was weakened by the British bullets and artillery but the regimental izindura shouted from the mountain proclaiming to the warriors that the king had sent them to fight not to run away. Thus reminded the regiments that were encircling stayed in place and continued to fight the British until they could advance. Here the values of the Zulu contributed to helping them win.
Their values, however, also lead to their defeat. They believed so much in Shakas traditional formation that they did not think to change it even when it had failed them in previous battles like those against the Boers where their assaults were constantly broken up (Knight, 1999). In addition, even when they had the opportunity to do so the Zulu failed to adopt the use of firearms so that they could adjust to the new threat of firearms hence their defeat by the Britsh (Knight, 199).
The Zulu treatment of prisoners and civilians who collaborated with the British was cruel. Many times they took rifles away from the prisoners and would cut them to pieces. They would debowel their warriors after the war to release their spirits.
The war had the effect of disheartening Zulu civilians so much that they eventually submitted to British rule. Many young men were lost who could have participated in other socio-economic activities within the Zulu kingdom. At the time of the war in Ulundi, most of the Zulu had had enough of fighting and desired peace more than anything and to resume their normal lives. A newspaper correspondent is reported as stating, By deprivations of all kinds the Zulu must feel the miseries of war and nothing will bring to home to them the horrors of war better than being deprived of the shelter of huts in cold nights. Fire, sword and rifle must never rest, day or night to ensure every Zulu man, woman or child at last cry for peace. (Laband, 2006). This was a description of methods employed by the British 1st battalion to bring the non-combatants to submission. They repeatedly burnt mini and amakhanda (homestead groups) of the Zulu civilians and drove off their livestock. They aimed to reduce the morale of the civilian population as much as possible so that they could not fight (Laband, 2006).
The submission of the Zulu was enhanced by offers Chelmsford made to their leaders. He offered protection for the people and retention of the chiefly status as long as the military systems and the monarchy were abolished (Laband, 2006).
The Anglo-Zulu war is in some ways typical of African military resistance to colonial conquest. This is because though the Zulu initially defeated the British army, they did so with great losses compared to the losses of the British Force. Eventually, the tide turned against the Zulu army and the British used the same divide and rule tactics to ensure complete submission as they had done in all of Africa resulting in a Zululand with 13 chiefs and therefore no hope of ever becoming a force to reckon with again.
In addition, the inferior Zulu weaponry and military strategy was not a match for the superior British army which had professional soldiers, firearms, bayonets, and British musketry. The fortifications the British set up also helped to prevent the advance of the Zulu Army. The defeat at Isandlwana also motivated the British forces and they staged an all-out campaign against the Zulu army causing them to retreat at almost every other battle thus disheartening them and causing their eventual submission. The high death toll left the Zulu army exhausted and unable to regroup as rapidly as the British force which could get support and provision from the rest of the British Empire placing the British at a greater advantage than the Zulu army.
The Anglo-Zulu war is different slightly because unlike the other African armies, they put up a resistance for a significant amount of time. Also, their initial defeat of the British shook the entire empire something which other African resistances had not done before. What the British thought would be an easy fight turned into a six-month war in which the British also sustained significant losses.
Works Cited
Knight I, 1999 Anatomy of the Zulu Army: From Shaka to Getshwayo, 1818-1879, Greenhill Books, ISBN 1853673633 pg256-270
Knight I, 1992, Zulu War 1879: Twilight of a Warrior Nation, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1855321653
Laband J, 2006, Daily Lives of Civilians in Wartime Africa: From Slavery Days to Rwandan Genocide, Greenwood Press, ISBN 0313335400
In the masterpiece, The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara presents eleven lessons based on his experiences in the Vietnam War. However, questions still emerge on whether the American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan complies with McNamaras eleven lessons.
This essay seeks to explain why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are in either compliance or non-compliance with the lessons learned from the film documentary titled the fog of war. The analysis of the themes of the movie reveals that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comply with the lessons learned from McNamaras movie.
Compliance with the Lessons Learned
The first lesson in McNamaras movie is empathize with the enemy. Drawn from an incident in the Cuban Missile crisis in which President Kennedy, USSRs Khrushchev and Fidel Castro almost plunged the world to nuclear war; McNamara argues that there is need to demonstrate empathy to the enemy even in times of war.
Blight and Lang (17) demonstrates that there was a possibility of the presence of a US diplomat who had lived with Khrushchev in Russia and argued to JFK that he negotiates with Khrushchev rather than declare nuclear war. In the perspective of Iraq and Afghanistan, the actions of the United States towards the two nations reveal a clear demonstration of empathy. Millions of taxpayers money is spent on humanitarian causes, security issues, and capacity building.
In the second lesson, McNamara posits, rationality will not save us. Within this lesson, concerns over Saddam Husseins totalitarian leadership rapidly grew, as the West demonstrated an increasing fear that Iraq was edging closer to acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Rationality in avoiding the conflict and eroding its relations with European nations would not have saved the United States from further terrorist attacks.
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, in which thousands of lives were lost, added a new twist into the U.S. relations with Iraq. However, before focusing on the situation in Iraq, the United States considered a massive mission in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. It is important to note that the mission in Afghanistan received global support that Iraq invasion.
Just as in the case of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is something beyond ones self is a featured theme in the movie The Fog of War. The struggle on the part of the soldiers and the political class to portray the victories of the war indicates compliance to this lesson.
The compliance of McNamaras lessons five, nine, and ten; proportionality should be a guideline in war, in order to do good, you may have to engage in evil and never say never respectively may be best analyzed from the impacts of Iraq and Afghanistan wars on US foreign policy.
The period of the Iraqi invasion was associated with an extremely high number of civilian and military casualties. The Bush Administration experienced resentment from most European nations and thus the inevitable damage to the image of the United States. According to Fallows (47), the declaration that the American invasion of Iraq has been a mistake because of inability to find the much-hyped WMD that was a slap in the face for the Bush administration.
Also, the support to the U.S. leadership after the invasion of Iraq was at its lowest point in history within the European Union. In the domestic context, the impact of the invasion on the U.S. foreign policy was best described as wanting.
The fact that the popularity and efficiency of the former President Bush drastically dropped is indicative of the inappropriate foreign policy manifested by the United States. This anti-Bush sentiment would later reflect in domestic polling that demonstrated the following result: approximately 28 percent of the interviewed individuals indicated Bush as the most unpopular president in modern American history (Cushman, 48).
The compliance of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with the sixth lesson on get the data revolves around the underlying fact just as the United States went into Vietnam without the knowledge on culture and history of Vietnam, they were caught in the same web in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars that were expected to be over in less than a year have taken a decade and the end of the conflict is yet to be determined.
The United States continues to be bogged down in unpopular wars that continue to suck billions of taxpayers dollars. The compliance of both wars on the need to be prepared to re-examine your reasoning revolves around the truth that the United States got it wrong in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the above discussions demonstrate that both Iraq and Afghanistan wars comply with the lessons learned from the film documentary titled the fog of war. The underlying themes of the movie capture the political, social, and economical aspects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a similar manner as the Vietnam war.
Works Cited
Blight, James, and Lang Janet. The fog of war: lessons from the life of Robert S. McNamara. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Print.
Cushman, Thomas. Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq. California: University of California Press, 2005. Print.
Fallows, James. Blind into Baghdad Americas War in Iraq. New York: Vintage Books, 2006. Print
Blue Gold: World Water Wars is an award-winning documentary film directed by Sam Bozzo. This movie deserves human attention in several reasons. Being a documentary movie, it presents an objective vision of the future. The importance of this movie is in its critical vision of what is going to happen.
People are so preoccupied with the present problems, that they do not notice the more important issues which are not connected with politics and economics. Blue Gold: World Water Wars is the movie that must be watch by each person as it considers environmental and political implications not for saving the nature and planet, but for saving humanity, because being too preoccupied with todays problems which people consider as urgent, they have forgotten about their survival on this planet.
Looking at the modern problems which preoccupy people, political, economic and environmental issues seem to be the most important. However, those who at least try to get a deeper vision of the modern world may understand what problems wait for mankind.
The director of the movie has done it and he sees that neither the oil shortage, nor the greenhouse effect will destroy the global nation. Absence of water is what makes human lives last for days. It is impossible to reject the facts presented in the movie and which make it notable. People should think about survival, not about global politics.
Remembering the human history, it is possible to understand that the greatest settlements were located near big rivers as people understood that water is a source of life. The movie presents several stories when people managed to live just seven days from the time when the last drop of water was in their organisms. Modern people do not notice the importance of water as they have it in excess. Nevertheless, ancient people understood the import6ance of water and worshiped on it as on God.
The movie helps to understand that the problems of today are miserable in comparison with the tragedy which awaits people in the future. The film director clearly presents the future problem and points at the facts which confirm his idea. The video is supported with supportive examples and strict examples which may not be contradicted.
Additionally, the proofs and scientific argumentation also important. This is not the amateur video about water shortage in the future. This is a professionally shot piece which presents argumentative and convincing proofs about the disaster which may be prevented if the pieces of advice are adopted for consideration.
Therefore, it may be concluded that Blue Gold: World Water Wars is deserving movie for watching as it makes people think about the future, it helps people understand how miserable and unimportant the problems we try to solve now may be in the future. Watching the movie further and further I began to understand how important water for us, the natural resource which we do not value. This movie deserves five stars out of stars for several reasons.
Much has already been said about the meaning and the problems raised in the movie. It is not a fiction which just shows the imagination of a film direction. This movie shows the ability of the author to see the future and to present it is detail, supporting with arguments. Additionally, the movie is not a financed project, it is based on the directors enthusiasm and the desire to warn the mankind.
Mississippis War: Slavery and Secession and Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property documentary explore the factors that caused the American Civil Warand the subsequent revolt by slaves. The Civil Waris one of the most debated topics across the US due to its impact on socio-economic and political domains. Scholars continue to examine the actual causes of the conflict to justify or refute existing details. Although politics played a significant role in triggering the civil war, the institution of slavery emerges as the most significant factor that caused it. Mississippis War documentary traces the history of slavery and its contribution to the American Civil War. On the other hand, Nat Turners documentary exemplifies how rebellious slaves intensified the drive for a revolution. Both documentaries discuss socio-economic and political issues that affected Americans before, during, and after the Civil War.
Foremost, slavery is a major issue discussed in Mississippis War and Nat Turner documentaries. The history of slavery in the US dates back to one-hundred years before the birth of the nation. British colonists arrived in America and started purchasing slaves to work on vast colonial plantations. The onset of the Revolutionary War inspired most of the American settlers to oppose the practice in their fight for freedom. Turner and a group of rebelling slaves heightened tension that spurred revolution in America. Mississippis War documentary discloses that some American Colonies outlawed servitude, which motivated the US to ban the importation of slaves after the American Revolution. Reforms enabled the newly formed nation to mitigate slavery, but the issue became rife with the gins invention in the late 18th century. This period witnessed the integration of slavery into economic goals across the Southern states; slave owners moved them from the upper South, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Maryland downward to work in cotton plantations.
Consequently, the issue of cotton and its contribution to the Civil War takes center stage in Mississippis War documentary. The arrival of slaves in Southern states, mainly Mississippi, accelerated cotton growth as the most productive crop. Plantation owners grew wealthy as the number of black laborers increased in Mississippi. As a result, Mississippis complexion changed and became the blackest state in the South. Although slaves toiled in large cotton plantations, they also worked as domestics, workers in industries and factories, construction of railroads, riverboats, and artisans of all kinds. However, the majority worked in cotton plantations, where they provided free or forced labor. The slaves input in the rise of cotton as the most economic cash crop was largely unnoticed; traders focused on the product rather than its cultivation or production process. Thus, plantation owners cited cotton as the reason for supporting the Civil War, but historians maintain that slavery was the underlying factor.
The interplay between cotton and slavery leads to political fallout between the northern and southern states and subsequent secession. The election of Abraham Lincoln caused fear and anxiety in the South since he was an abolitionist, and the southern states dominated in advancing slave labor. Mississippi became the center of resistance to the eradication of servitude and the election of Lincoln. Therefore, southern states started seceding from the Union after Lincolns election. It is worth noting that splitting states based their argument on freedom, rights, and the power to self-govern. Most of the Mississippians and other Southerners insisted on maintaining their right to self-govern in any way they saw suitable. The issue of state rights became a political theory invented by the southern states to defend their secession claims, but the underlying motive was to preserve slavery. White Southerners feared losing everything they owned, including money, property, and slaves.
Religion and violence are significant issues that emerge from both documentaries. In this regard, Christianity influences slave owners actions and enslaved workers in different industries, including cotton farming. Religious beliefs do not help slaves deal with their situation; it drives some of them into rebellion. Notably, southern states were overwhelmingly Christian, which compelled plantation owners to show some care toward the slaves. Plantation owners believed that the value they gained from the slaves largely depended on the respect accorded to the slaves. Thus, they defended slavery on Christianity grounds drawing from Protestant and Catholic faith as well as the Bible verse, Slave obey your Masters. Despite the acclamations, slaves experienced mistreatment on and off the farm.
Therefore, slaves used Christianity to justify their violence against whites. For instance, Nat Turners documentary explores violence inflicted on whites based on religious beliefs. Turner, the leader of the rebels, primarily responds to slavery by citing the Christian faith alluded to the loosened serpent. He believes that Christ had laid down the yoke, and it was his time to take it and fight against the serpent. Hence, slaves use the same Christian beliefs to attack their masters, which worsens their situation; rebelling captives were hanged and their heads cut off. Violence seems like the only option available for Turner to save other slaves from torment by white masters. However, it is not the only option for someone like Turner because state administrations could be compelled to abolish slavery irrespective of the time it would take.
The Sabra and Shatila Massacre was a great tragedy that occurred in 1982, when a large number of innocent civilians were brutally murdered by militia troops. The Massacre, a documentary consisting of a number of interviews with people who in this or that way took part in the tragedy, not only exposes the atrocity of the tragedy but also provides some valuable historical data on the topic.
The movie The Massacre is one of the 15 episodes of a documentary series entitled The War of Lebanon. The series were filmed and produced by Al Jazeera Satellite Channel, and distributed around the world by Sabbah Media Corporation. They depict some important episodes which took place during the Lebanese Civil War in 1975-1990. The movies include interviews with key figures that took place in the events, as well as with eyewitnesses, and contain vast visual evidence filmed during the time of war. The Massacre is the tenth episode of the series, dealing with the events which occurred during the Sabra and Shatila Massacre in September 16-18, 1982, when approximately 800 to 3500 civilians were slaughtered by the militia troops close to the Kataeb Party, also known as the Lebanese Phalanxes Party ( The Massacre, 2012; The War of Lebanon, n.d.).
The movie consists of a number of interviews with some people who were involved in the massacre or the events connected to it, such as individuals directly related to Elie Hobeika, a Lebanese Phalangist and a militia commander who is known to be largely responsible for The Massacre. Among the interviewees are Robert Hatem, Hobeikas security chief; Michel Samaha, one of Hobeikas closest political allies; Maurice Draper, the delegate of the U.S. President to Lebanon at the time; Ihud Yaari, who was working as an Israeli journalist at that time; and two eyewitnesses who became victims and lost their family in The Massacre. A brief overview of the situation that preceded the events is given, and the comments of some interviewees are provided. After that, a rather long period of time is devoted to eyewitnesses, who tell what they were able to see and how they survived during The Massacre. And, finally, at the end of the film, some opinions and facts are expressed regarding the key figures responsible for the massacre.
Definitely, one of the strengths of the movie is that the comments of individuals who were close to the ones responsible for the tragedy, and also involved in it themselves, provide a valuable insight into the situation that occurred. Also, the story told by the eyewitnesses, as well as numerous photos and videos depicting the scenes from the massacre allow the viewers to understand what The Massacre looked like. On the other hand, a potential weakness is that the episode on its own perhaps does not provide enough context for the viewers.
The movie might be said to mostly conform to the established historical vision of The Massacre. The Lebanese Phalangist Elie Hobeika is shown to bear a large part of the responsibility for the slaughter; his close associates and fellow party members are interviewed. Even they admit that Hobeika and Lebanese forces are to be blamed for The Massacre; it can be seen, for instance, on 38:10, 38:40-40:00, 40:50 of the movie ( The Massacre, 2012).
The Israeli officials are also blamed for losing control over the situation. At 06:30-06:50, it is stated that the transfer of the militia troops was commented by Israel in a way that made it appear that the militiamen were a part of Israeli army that was to clean the place of some Palestinian troops and prevent possible slaughters and acts of revenge for the preceding assassination of Bachir Gemayel ( The Massacre, 2012). Maurice Draper at 41:40 mentions that he called Ariel Sharon, the Minister of Defense of Israel at the time, and said that since Israel was supposed to have the full control over the area, the tragedy was its responsibility to a large extent ( The Massacre, 2012).
The movie itself appears historically credible; even the members of the Lebanese Phalanxes do not deny their partys responsibility for the events, even though they do try to keep their face, e.g. at 39:00-40:00 of the movie by saying that many other forces were guilty as well ( The Massacre, 2012). The stories told by the eyewitnesses (especially the man) provide some details on how the slaughter occurred. There is, in fact, no artistic merit or acting in the movie; it only consists of fragments of interviews, pictures and episodes from the times of The Massacre, and the offscreen commentaries. As it was mentioned, the episode on its own perhaps lacks context for those who are not well-versed in the history of the conflict. On the other hand, the movie does capture the viewers attention, in particular by exposing the atrocities that took place during the tragedy.
To sum up, it should be noted that The Massacre is a documentary which provides valuable evidence regarding the Sabra and Shatila slaughter of 1982. Even though the episode on its own does not supply much information about the broader context, it offers important data related to the narrow topic of the slaughter itself.