Always appreciate how you meld our times and historical precedents. So many problems remain or come up in different forms. The response to immigration seems deeply rooted in prejudice and overlapping economic outcomes. In so many of these debates Americans seldom look to underlying conditions that are key to solving illegal entrants.
On the new Trump stand on empire, it is so different from the isolationism he loved with a U S drawing away from involvements that interfere with the country's self interests. He seems to think about some manifest mission to grab what he can that gives a greatness to our position in the world. His following will not buy into that proposition. Also the left scholarship have been so loud in condemning the colonial and neocolonial past, there is no appetite to go back to that. Panama and Greenland have voices. Strange ideas emerging again with little thought or understanding of our previous missteps.
I'm beginning my unit on the 1920's today with my regular US History classes. We discussed the Red Scare, the Sacco & Vanzetti trial, and then touched on the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924. The class noticed that the US had almost-open immigration from after the Civil War until 1921-about 60 years. I mentioned that the government re-opened immigration in 1965, and then further still in 1986. (about 40 years from 1924-1965) Now we're kicking around the idea of limiting/changing immigration patterns and enforcement, about 60 years after re-opening immigration. Almost like history has a cyclical element to it.
The phrase “First, it signaled America’s peculiar concern with things Chinese. China was seen as a threat in the Gilded Age for sending its people to America. It’s seen as a threat today for sending its manufactures.” seems extremely interesting to me because I’m currently reading a book entitled “the house of huawei: the secret history of China’s most powerful company.”
When teaching literature, I would often put a work into its historical context. This doesn't mean I insisted on any one literary theory, whether it be the New Historicism, Freudian analysis, Marxist analysis, etc., etc. There's an amusing anecdote (probably apocryphal) about the professor of English literature who was a New Historicist. He walked into class one day and told the students that today's lecture would be on Andrew Marvell's famous "carpe diem" poem "To His Coy Mistress." He talked on and on about the era of the English Civil War (Cromwell and King Charles I), especially the Interregnum. He finally looked at his watch and noticed that class had about a minute to go "before the bell." He said to the class "and by the way, 'To His Coy Mistress' is a fine poem - a damn fine poem!"
Always appreciate how you meld our times and historical precedents. So many problems remain or come up in different forms. The response to immigration seems deeply rooted in prejudice and overlapping economic outcomes. In so many of these debates Americans seldom look to underlying conditions that are key to solving illegal entrants.
On the new Trump stand on empire, it is so different from the isolationism he loved with a U S drawing away from involvements that interfere with the country's self interests. He seems to think about some manifest mission to grab what he can that gives a greatness to our position in the world. His following will not buy into that proposition. Also the left scholarship have been so loud in condemning the colonial and neocolonial past, there is no appetite to go back to that. Panama and Greenland have voices. Strange ideas emerging again with little thought or understanding of our previous missteps.
...excellent piece.
I'm beginning my unit on the 1920's today with my regular US History classes. We discussed the Red Scare, the Sacco & Vanzetti trial, and then touched on the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924. The class noticed that the US had almost-open immigration from after the Civil War until 1921-about 60 years. I mentioned that the government re-opened immigration in 1965, and then further still in 1986. (about 40 years from 1924-1965) Now we're kicking around the idea of limiting/changing immigration patterns and enforcement, about 60 years after re-opening immigration. Almost like history has a cyclical element to it.
The phrase “First, it signaled America’s peculiar concern with things Chinese. China was seen as a threat in the Gilded Age for sending its people to America. It’s seen as a threat today for sending its manufactures.” seems extremely interesting to me because I’m currently reading a book entitled “the house of huawei: the secret history of China’s most powerful company.”
When teaching literature, I would often put a work into its historical context. This doesn't mean I insisted on any one literary theory, whether it be the New Historicism, Freudian analysis, Marxist analysis, etc., etc. There's an amusing anecdote (probably apocryphal) about the professor of English literature who was a New Historicist. He walked into class one day and told the students that today's lecture would be on Andrew Marvell's famous "carpe diem" poem "To His Coy Mistress." He talked on and on about the era of the English Civil War (Cromwell and King Charles I), especially the Interregnum. He finally looked at his watch and noticed that class had about a minute to go "before the bell." He said to the class "and by the way, 'To His Coy Mistress' is a fine poem - a damn fine poem!"