projects-----

Over this week, you have encountered several different perspectives on how narratives of other times (history) and of other places (global understanding) are constructed. You have also explored the various analytical tools offered by the thinkers whose work we have read/viewed. Now use that knowledge to write an essay of five to six pages (double-spaced, 12-point type) based on one of the following options.

Option 1:
Define both history and global perspective (do not regurgitate the NCC competency definition for the latter), citing clearly the evidence on which you are basing your definition. Using your definitions, now analyze how our location in a particular country at a particular time influences our writing of history and our ability to interpret and understand the histories and contemporary experiences in other regions of the world. You must refer meaningfully to at least five of the thinkers from this week, and to the School of the Americas documentary in your analysis.

Option 2:
Define clearly what you understand by the term "primary source," citing in detail the evidence on which you are basing your definition. Overfield on Wednesday helped you to interrogate primary sources, but by now you have also read Zerubavel, Fusco and Said. How would you use the questions they offer to investigate & further clarify the relationship between the US and Central/South America (using the primary source evidence from Wednesday morning and afternoon)? Identify at least three additional types of primary sources you would need in order to avoid the analytical pitfalls these thinkers pinpoint. Explain why you chose these types of sources, and how they would help you develop a greater understanding of the relationship between the US and Central/South America.

Option 3:
Choose an article on world affairs from either the Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com) or the New York Times (www.nytimes.com) that is at least 1000 words long. You may pull a current article from the daily issues of the papers. Or, if you would like analyze an article on an area of the world that interests you from one of these publications, search either the Post or the New York Times via the database Lexis/Nexis (accessible via http://library.gmu.edu/resources/databases.html).

With specific reference to the work of the writers you have encountered this week (you must use Fitzgerald, Zerubavel, Said and the School of the Americas documentary), analyze the perspectives on the past and on the rest of the world offered in your chosen article. Remember to pay particular attention to what is not included in the article (which voices, which perspectives, etc.) and how those omissions (or elisions) shape the interpretation you are offered. As you analyze, think about the extent to which your article is a primary source or a secondary source? For example, to what extent does it include primary/secondary sources? And so on.

Finally, whatever option you choose, think about the interpretations of the world with which print, broadcast and online news sources bombard us daily. How might the ideas you have encountered this week help you filter and analyze these news reports, and develop your independent interpretations from them?

For this essay you will have to do a combination of two things. First, begin by providing a working definition of ideology that you have procured through the texts and discussions of this week (you will need to use Kavanagh in this definition). Make sure you consider in this explanation of the concept how ideology affects the way we operate in the world. Next, choose one of the following options, determine how an understanding of ideology is pivotal for addressing the question, then proceed with your analysis. A good response for any of the three options will demonstrate your knowledge and informed use of the appropriate texts in the defense of your ideas. No matter which option you choose, make sure to use Kavanagh and either Nietzsche or Plato to inform or to use as a "model" for your critique and analysis.

Option 1:
It can be said that Marxism and Christianity are ideologies where there is a "payoff" for good behavior during one's lifetime. Compare/contrast this to Confucianism, where being good in a particular way is its own reward. You will need to analyze the ramifications of what each of these ideologies promise in return for following its precepts - what is lost, and what is gained by adhering to each of these ideologies? Which ideology, in your opinion, might offer the most workable/just/fair society for the greatest number of people and why?

Option 2:
The movie "To Live" portrays the transition from a society based (however loosely) on Confucian ideals, to a revolution based on Marxist ones, and finally to a communist societal framework. Analyze these ideological transitions. Next, consider whether new ideologies can deliver what they promise, or if they are only effective tools for overthrowing old paradigms.

Option 3:
Consider how ideologies can be used as tools of both liberation and oppression. To narrow the scope of this paper, choose either the transition from Roman to Christian ideology or from Confucian to Marxist ideology. In this paper you will need to show how the later ideology identifies the former as somehow oppressive and purports to eliminate that oppression as an ideology of liberation. Describe how either transition ends in a place not "advertised." Does the new ideology contain its own elements of oppression, perhaps simply different from those in the past?

In weeks one and two you have explored the issues related to writing history, and to understanding the role of ideology in our lives. In this week, you have explored political systems, or states, different from our own nation-state; namely empires. As you have learned, empires were the state systems people often lived under historically. You have also learned that imperial systems relied on different ideologies to legitimize their control of the peoples they ruled. What kind of ideologies did empires employ? How did these ideologies affect the writing of the history of these empires? And how was the writing of history also used by subalterns, or disaffected and oppressed groups, to challenge empires and their official ideology?

In thinking about these questions, consider Hobsbawm's analysis of the differences between empires old and new, and incorporate the information from Bulliet on the Ottoman and Spanish empires. The most obvious difference between the two was that the Ottoman was an Islamic Empire, whereas the Spanish was a Christian empire. How do the week's primary sources (Tacitus, de Busbeq, Columbus, Sepulveda and de las Casas) help us understand that role of religion in these empires? And how do the secondary sources for the week give us an idea of how imperial ideology can be resisted?