What influence does religion have on American culture?

 

«We have just enough religion to make us hate. But not enough to make us love one another.» Jonathan Swift

In the text civil religion in America, Robert Bellah shows the relation between religion, politics and culture. It could be demonstrate for example in John F. Kennedy´s inaugural speech which shows the importance of religion as a theme that portrays the values of American life without addressing a particular religion or “God”. Kennedy was careful to refer to God but not to a Catholic god (based on his own religion) as that would represent mixing religious matters with his own political stance. The text also shows how civil religion relates to political society in America and to private religious organizations in the country. It shows that American institutions have a religious perspective embedded in them. (Bellah, 2005)

Kennedy´s speech is just an example because in general the American presidents make similar references to God, so it reveals the essentially place of religion nowadays. Bellah argues that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension, there are certain common elements of religious orientation that the great majority of Americans share. This public religious dimension is expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that he calls the American civil religion. The phrase civil religion is, Rousseau’s, he outlines the simple dogmas of the civil religion: the existence of God, the life to come, the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance. (Bellah, 2005)

Bellah point out how the idea of religion was foundational to the birth of the American state. The words and acts of the founding fathers, especially the first few presidents, shaped the form and tone of the civil religion as it has been maintained ever since. For example, in the Declaration of Independence there are four references to “god”: the idea of independence expressed in the laws of nature and God, also the idea that men “are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”, the idea that the legitimacy of the nation is based on a “higher law” which is based on biblical religion and an appeal to the protection of divine providence. The Civil War, was another event that involved the national self-understanding so deeply as to require expression in the civil religion. Bellah also uses Benjamin Franklin´s autobiography to point out that religious principles and the recognition of “God” should govern the creation of the country and a base for all religions present in America. (Bellah, 2005)

In conclusion Bellah consider that it may be worthwhile to relate the civil religion to the most serious situation that Americans now face, what he call the third time of trial. The first time of trial had to do with the question of independence. The second trial comes with slavery and the institutionalization of American democracy, based on religious values. The third trial has got to do with the “responsible action in a revolutionary world”, which represents an obligation of America to uphold the values of its democracy tot eh rest of countries, as the “American revolution” became a model for the rest of the contemporary world. (Bellah, 2005)

Otherwise, in the text “Religion in America” by George Gallu reviews a recent survey indicators on religious life in America, the surveys reveal that in America there is a rising tide of interest in religion. It seems that the people of this nation are coming increasingly to believe that the problems of the world will not be solved through people’s efforts alone but through a change of heart and a turning to God, in that way. Americans express a high level of confidence in local and national religious leaders. (Gallup, 1985). Later in 2007 discover in other survey that 2007 Americans said they would refuse to vote for an atheist than for a candidate from any other group.

Decade after decade, the Gallup Organization reported some of the most familiar numbers in American religion. More than 90 percent of Americans said, “yes” when asked if they believe in God- a number that has changed little since the 1940s. (deseretnews.com/article/700203438/George-Gallup-Jrs-interest-in-religion.html?pg=all, 2011).
According to Kenneth D. Wald and David C. Leege in their book “Culture, Religion and American Political Life” religion is an important element in the system of beliefs and values on the American people, besides religion is a constitutive element of community and relationship-building in the United States

To conclude, I think it is evident that religious has a big impact and influence in American culture and politics, in part because the U.S was founded in order to avoid religious intolerance and freedom of and from religion was written into the constitution, people expect that their religious beliefs should be taken into consideration when it’s time to make laws in the U.S, it has special relation with the separation of state and church. However I agree with Bellah when he points out: The principle of separation of church and state guarantees the freedom of religious belief and association but at the same time clearly segregates the religious sphere, which is considered to be essentially private, from the political one.” (Bellah, 2005)

.
References
• Bellah R. (2005), ´Civil religión in America’ in Daedalus, Vol. 134, No. 4, 50 Years (Fall, 2005), pp. 40-55, MIT Press.

• deseretnews.com/article/700203438/George-Gallup-Jrs-interest-in-religion.html?pg=all. George Gallup Jr.´s interest in religion. . [online] Available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700203438/George-Gallup-Jrs-interest-in-religion.html?pg=all. [Accessed: May 17th, 2013].

• Gallup G. (1985) ´Religion in America´ in Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 480, Religion in America today, pp. 167-174

What caused the current economic crisis in the United States?

According to Kraay and Dollar antiglobalization activists are convinced that economic integration has been widening the gap between rich and poor. The best evidence, however, proves them wrong. Thanks to higher growth driven by greater openness to trade and investment, global inequality has narrowed and global poverty has been reduced. So far, the current wave of globalization, which started around 1980, has actually promoted economic equality and reduced poverty. (Kraay, Dollar, 2003).

In addition, the authors argue that after all, the rhetoric about globalization is stripped away, many of the policy questions come down to whether the rich world will make integrating with the world economy easy for those poor communities that want to do so. The world’s poor have a large stake in how the rich countries answer. (Kraay, Dollar, 2003). However I think it is possible to identify another point of view and what Kraay and Dollar are saying is not completely true because if we look, for example, the film capitalism: a love story by Michel Moore capitalism and the process of globalization have a huge impact on people´s lives and make deeper the gap between rich and poor people.

What I mentioned above could be demonstrate in the U.S financial crisis that exploited in 2008 and affected many markets around the world because nowadays we live in a globalized world when financial markets have become increasily interconnected. It has special relation in the approach of Manuel Castells that affirm in his book “Rise of the Network Society”: “Our world has been in a process of structural transformation for over two decades. This process is multidimensional, but it is associated with the emergence of a new technological paradigm, based in information and communication technologies, that took shape in the 1970s and diffused unevenly around the world” (Castells, 2005). In other words, technology has increased the speed and complexity of financial instruments and there is a broader access and lower costs to financing.

In this context, the best way to understand the financial crisis is to watch the film “Inside Job” by Charles Ferguson that exposes the causes and consequences of the 2008 crash when free markets basically creates its own crisis. “Banks and loan companies were freer to gamble with their depositors’ money; they were themselves freer to borrow more; they were free to offer investors dizzyingly complex financial instruments, with income streams from different debts bundled up, including high-interest home loans offered to high-risk borrowers – the so-called «sub-prime» market that offered mouthwateringly high returns. The good times rolled. The banks ballooned.” (guardian.co.uk/film/2011/feb/17/inside-job-review, 2011).

As I mentioned in my film analysis of the film “Capitalism: a love story” the crash corrupted the discipline of economics itself and reflected the corruption of many of the most financial companies and banks making the market very unstable and makes deeper the gap between poor and rich. In this way the U.S had to face many problems as unemployment, democratic deficit, people without houses as a result of the mortgages, in general it devastated the low and middle class, people sells their assets and takes massive debts, U.S. loses self-sustainability, national security and leverage.

As a conclusion, I think that crisis would have been avoided if only the economists had regulated everything a lot more, had fewer housing subsidies, and had more responsible bankers, they take an advantage in one way of the ignorance of the people and they also were wrong thinking that the economy were going to grow grow and that everything were going to get better. So for me the Great Depression was not an enough lesson for the Americans not only for economists but also for the civil society, that´s why I consider necessary to adopt new reforms and measures to make the economy much more tough. Finally I disagree with the approach of Kraay and Dollar because for me global inequality has not narrowed and global poverty has not been reduced. Personally each time we live in a society that have a big gaps between rich and poor people, as the financial crisis reflects with the suprime mortgages crisis.

 

Bibliography

• Capitalism: a love story. . [online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvydwaPhvLs. [Accessed: May 16th, 2013].
• Castells, Manuel and Cardoso, Gustavo, eds., The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. . Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2005
• Dollar D. and Kraay A. (2003), “Spreading the Wealth,” America and the World, pp. 184-198.
• Guardian.co.uk/film/2011/feb/17/inside-job-review. Indise job review. [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/feb/17/inside-job-review. [Accessed: May 16th, 2013].
• Inside job official trailer in hd. [online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk. [Accessed: May 17th, 2013].

How did American foreign policy change with the end of the cold war and the rise of a new context for world politics and international relations?

“The end of the Cold War is our common victory”.
Gorbachev, January 1992

The Cold War came to an end because it was impossible for two powers to divide and rule the world, it led to renewed questioning of the US global role and in particular its involvement in peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions (Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo) and in nation building. However, there was little real national debate on foreign policy interests and priorities. President Bush’s optimism about a ‘‘new world order’’ was short-lived as the US struggled to deal with conflicts in the Balkans and elsewhere. President Clinton’s priorities were expanding democracy, free markets, and preparing the US for the challenges of globalization. His emphasis on multilateral institutions should not hide the fact that his administration was also prepared to go it alone on many issues. Republican control of Congress from 1995 onwards made life difficult for Clinton. George W. Bush appointed an experienced team to run foreign policy. He began by rejecting many of Clinton’s policies and adopted mainly a unilateralist approach during his first term in office. Several international treaties were rejected and ‘‘new realism’’ was proclaimed as the guiding principle. The September 2001 terrorist attacks led to a major change in US foreign policy. The overwhelming priority was now ‘‘the war on terrorism’’ and other issues were downgraded. The invasion of Iraq, supposed to herald a new era of democracy in the wider Middle East, was hugely controversial. Bush’s foreign and security policy was a central issue of the 2004 presidential election. (Cameron, 2002)

This vision of a ‘‘new world order’’ had echoes of Wilsonian idealism but Bush did not maintain his grandiose rhetoric for long. His administration was faced with numerous pressing problems, including the break-up of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany (a task it managed with considerable skill), a humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia, and the tragedy of Yugoslavia. (Cameron, 2002).

George H. Bush was an expert in foreign affairs, however he focuses too much in that and didn’t bring prosperity to the country, it was an Economic Depression in the U.S, then Clinton gave domestic issues as a priority and concentrate more in five key points. a) to restore the American economy to good health, ‘‘an essential prerequisite for foreign policy, b) to increase the importance attached to trade and open markets for American business, c) to demonstrate US leadership in the global economy, d) to help the developing countries grow faster and e) to promote democracy in Russia and elsewhere.

The post-Cold War presidents found it difficult to articulate a new strategy for the US. All were ready to intervene overseas to protect American interests. George H. W. Bush ensured public support for the Gulf War by linking it to American oil interests. Clinton was also ready to use military force, albeit reluctantly, for a mixture of motives, including humanitarian purposes. Clinton and George W. Bush differed in their approach toward multilateral institutions but the differences narrowed somewhat in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the need to secure international support to combat the terrorist threat. George W. Bush, however, accepted the neocon thesis that American military power could resolve most foreign policy problems. The Iraq war was to demonstrate both the potency and the impotency of US military power. (Cameron, 2002)

In my opinion it is clearly that at the end of the Cold War the United States wanted to demonstrate once again its supremacy and capacities and that they could maintain that. In this context it is possible to identify the different interventions that they did and try to show not only their own interests but also protecting other ones, that’s why its involvement in peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions. However was a challenge for the Americans to avoid a multipolarity world order just because they wanted to have under control different geopolitical scenarios especially in Latin America and Africa. Moreover it is important to mention that The United States knew perfectly how to take an advantage the “boom” of globalization that allowed to expand more effectively their principles and values.

References

Cameron, Fraser. (2002) US Foreign Policy after the Cold War. Global hegemon or reluctant sheriff?. Volume two: since 2002. Taylor & Francis Ed. Pp. 13-33.

John Gerard Ruggie (1997). “The Past as Prologue? Interests, Identity, and American Foreign Policy”, International Security, Vol. 21, No. 4, p. 89-125.

How did the United States attempt to stop the spread of communism and influence international security?

At the end of the Second World War when hostilities ceased, The Unites States was by far the strongest military power in the world- and the only one with nuclear weapons. It was by far the richest as well. Such economic and military superiority was a dangerously heady brew. It produced an intoxicating super confident belief that nothing was beyond the power of the United States- that America had not only a mission to be the policeman of the world, but the ability to carry it out. (Thernstrom,1984).

In 1945 the world was divided in different scenarios. It was “the free world against “the slave world”, democracy versus international communism. The struggle came to be known as the Cold War. (Thernstrom,1984). The United States in one side and the Soviet Union in the other one, both sides were looking for centers of influence to spread their own ideology in every corner of the globe, democracy versus communism. During World War II, and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers. However, the relationship between the two nations was a tense one. Americans had long been wary of Soviet communism and concerned about Russian leader Joseph Stalin’s tyrannical, blood-thirsty rule of his own country. For their part, the Soviets resented the Americans’ decades-long refusal to treat the USSR as a legitimate part of the international community as well as their delayed entry into World War II, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russians. After the war ended, these grievances ripened into an overwhelming sense of mutual distrust and enmity. (history.com/topics/cold-war, 2013).

It imposed an “Iron Curtain” to seal off contact between East and West, to ensure that citizens ruled by puppet governments were exposed to no ideas but the party line. While Russians consolidated their control over Eastern Europe and worked feverishly to break America’s nuclear monopoly, the United States launched a crusade to counter Soviet expansion and to achieve a commanding position in the world. The announced aim of American foreign policy in these years was “containment” of communism. (Thernstrom,1984)

One hand, a key element of the containment strategy was economic assistance to European countries whose economies had been ravaged by the war. The United States implemented the Marshall Plan to reconstruct and rebuilt Europe, investing around 12 billion USD between 1947 and 1950 and lifted its economy out of the doldrums, substantially benefiting American business at the same time. The corollary of containment was military force. The United States constructed a worldwide network of military alliances and a ring of naval and air bases around the Soviet Union. (Thernstrom,1984). President Truman (1884-1972) agreed with the policy of containment, he said, “It must be the policy of the United States,” he declared before Congress in 1947, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation…by outside pressures.” This way of thinking would shape American foreign policy for the next four decades. (history.com/topics/cold-war, 2013.) What is well known as a “Truman Doctrine” The United States must consider the spread of communism as a threat to democracy, also the doctrine argued that The U.S. will not intervene in a country that choses communism freely, but if a country requests assistance to prevent a communist takeover, the U.S. would offer materials, money and technical knowledge.

On the other hand, as a response to the Marshall Plan implemented by Unites States, the Soviet established the Communist Information Bureau (COMINFORM) in 1947, which united all European communist parties. However The Comminform helped create tension between communist and noncommunist parties in Europe but never really came up with a successful economic recovery program.

In addition, in 1949 the prospect of further Communist expansion prompted the United States and 12 other Western nations to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Soviet Union and its affiliated Communist nations in Eastern Europe founded a rival alliance, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. The alignment of nearly every European nation into one of the two opposing camps formalized the political division of the European continent that had taken place since World War II (1939-45). This alignment provided the framework for the military standoff that continued throughout the Cold War (1945-91). Like NATO, the Warsaw Pact focused on the objective of creating a coordinated defense among its member nations in order to deter an enemy attack. There was also an internal security component to the agreement that proved useful to the USSR. (history.com/topics/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact, 3013)

To conclude, the policy of containment show the desire of the Unites States to keep and demonstrate to the whole world its power and supremacy, not only to the Soviet Union because there are many reasons and interests behind the “help” and interventionism of The United States in countries as South Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Latin America. The Truman Doctrine reflects the American support and aid to those countries that rejected communism. From my point of view the different policies that adopted the Unites States during the Cold War reflects the realist explanations

References
• History.com/topics/cold-war. Cold War. [online] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war [Accessed: 22 Mar 2013].
• History.com/topics/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact. Formation of NATO and Warsaw Pact. [online] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact. [Accessed: 22 Mar 2013].
• Thernstrom S. (1984), ‘A History of the American People Volume Two: Since 1865’, Harcourt Brace and Jovanich ed. Pp 694-716.

What policy measures taken during the interwar period represent a shift from interventionism to isolationism and how did they affect America´s international stance?

After the First World War the economy of America was thriving, during the 20’s the country The United States was emerging as the industrial giant of the world, they show how powerful they could be and they had a particularly style of life. However, due to the costly experience of World War I and the Great Depression during the 30’s, America immediately went back to an isolationist foreign policy, avoiding its involvement in foreign conflicts (Until World War II).

The interwar period, From 1919-1941, the American public demanded isolationism to avoid costly wars and loss of American lives in overseas ventures. Understanding isolationism as “ the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain peace avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.” (Dictionary.com, 2013). Nonetheless, the American neutrality announced by the president Wilson was a contradiction because they proclaimed nonintervention but they didn’t it in practice. Wilson had banned foreign loans to prevent Americans from developing economic connections that would give them a vested interest in the outcome of the struggle. But it did not include interbank credits, a serious omission (Thernstrom, 1984). Woodrow Wilson was an anglophile and was very supportive of good relations with Britain, he moved to a process of loans and investments that favored the Allies and redirected trade towards England, while being very stern against Germany due to it´s development in submarine “U-boat” technology. In contrast, the United States had an interventionism stance supported ideals such as the League of Nations, US interventionism continued in the realms of foreign trade, repayment of foreign debt and support of international peace.

Two events lead to the end of U.S. neutrality. On one hand, the sinking of the Lusitania vessel which ended up killing 128 American citizens. On the other hand, the interception of a telegram from German Foreign secretary Hans Zimmerman proposing an alliance between Germany and Mexico against the United States. Woodrow Wilson was confident that American entry into European war would help spread American democratic freedoms to the rest of the world. It certainly did not enlarge the freedoms available to the ordinary American at home. (Thernstrom, 1984).

The war had many such unanticipated effects on American life, some of them temporary, some of them far-reaching. It leads the federal government into deeper involvement in the management of the economy than ever before. Most important, it unleashed waves of hysteria and xenophobia that drowned out dissent, and contributed to the triumph of two intolerant and repressive “reforms” which are immigration restriction and national prohibition. Thernstrom, 1984). The Great Depression intensified the United States to more severe policies of isolationism through the establishment of various institutions and increased feelings of xenophobia when the United States Congress approved a series of immigration restrictions between 1917 and 1924 that reversed the nation’s historic free immigration policy. The war and the “Red Scare” because of the ‘threat’ from communism or the war spreading. Immigration law. Forms of restriction included tough literacy tests for immigrants (particularly Chinese and Japanese) but also restrictions on people coming from Eastern Europe or other Socialist countries.

The long drive for immigration restriction finally triumphed because of the anxieties and hatreds stirred up by World War I. The same can be said for another reform movement with an even longer tradition-the crusade against the Demon Rum. The Eighteen Amendment to the constitution (1919) which banned alcohol from the land. New lobbying groups appeared into he United States in relation to this prohibition: the Christian temperance Union, the Anti-Saloon league among others. The roots of the prohibitionist force came from small towns and farming areas of the Midwest, West and South and through moral campaigning and recurring to the anti-immigration spirit it moved into the urban areas of America (New York and Chicago). What made this prohibitionist movement unique was the fact that it was the ban was intended to be permanent and embedded into the Constitution, and in its way was a way of expressing the anti-immigration spirit, focusing on the “immoral” standards of Europe.( Thernstrom, 1984).

The election of Roosevelt in 1932 introduced a new strand of policies. The New Deal focused on overcoming The Depression and pushed America’s foreign policy towards isolationism and again focuses on internal domestic affairs known as “Relief, Recovery and Reform” as a political project dealing with economic, military and political issues. (Jenkins:277). The great Depression finished with the prosperity of the 20’s, the economy was changing and was necessary to enforced the country, that’s why Roosevelt really wanted interventionism and the New Deal implemented 1933 had the objective of getting the U.S. out of the Great depression. It´s measures included employment support and employment generation measures, initiatives for public work and incentives for private investment.

The great depression changes the panorama for world politics and U.S. foreign policy, the principal objective was to preventing the U.S. from becoming involved in another war. But through the “quarantine speech in 1937”, Roosevelt tried to break away from isolationism. He was talking about the need for a collective security and the U.S responsibility to prevent the spread of war.

Finally as a conclusion the history reflects that the United States during the inter war period adopted an isolationism policy because the country didn’t want to suffer the costs of the war. Also, “close their boundaries” helped the country to
Increase their power as much as possible until became as a hegemonic country in the world, also the geostrategic position of the country helped to avoid the interventionism, especially with the Great Depression in my opinion, the best solutions and policy was isolationism. However with the outbreak of the Second World War was unavoidable the interventionism and the foreign policy change extremely.

References
• Breve historia de los estados Unidos. Phillip Jenkins. Capítulo: Guerra e influencia mundial (1917-1956) pp. 257 – 314
• Dictionary. Com. 2013. Concept of isolationism. [Online]. Available at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/isolationism.    [Accessed: 21 Mar 2013].

• Thernstrom S. (1984), ‘A History of the American People Volume Two: Since 1865’, Harcourt Brace and Jovanich ed. Pp 540 – 562.

How did the U.S. expand from a country affected by a civil war to a “new empire” at the turn of the XXth century?

The American civil war (1861-1865) was one of the most violent times in the History of the United States when the Northern and the Southern states decided for war, each side had to mobilize its resources and its plan strategy, it affected the way of life of many people in different aspects. According to David Potter “In America the steadily rising tensions between North and South seemed increasingly likely to destroy the feeling of national unity which had appeared completely triumphant during the first two decades of the century”.

Also it is important to mention the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments because were essential to the Civil Rights Movement, the 13th abolished slavery, the 14th adopted civil right, blacks and whites have the same rights, finally the 15th amendment allowed blacks to vote. So, the three amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War has been the most important additions to the Constitution since the original Bill of Rights (Michael Zuckert, 2013). I mention that because it reflects that the war altered the social, economic, politic, cultural spheres in the country.

Additionally there were many loss of human life, enormous material destruction in the South, secession stopped being a political option in the United States, urbanization grew at a much faster pace after the war, the U.S. had now an urban and industrial character and such urbanization allowed for a relatively quick process of postwar reconstruction.

From Early XIX century to Mid-XIX century, very little attention was put to foreign affairs as the Civil war dominated all aspects of politics in the U.S, but at the end of the civil war public interest in foreign affairs, according to Sellers and Mcmillen, focuses on four traditional concerns. a) The world was moving toward free government, b) the public felt that the United States had a special interest in the western hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine, c) Americans had a special and highly ambivalent relationship with England and d) the desire to expand foreign trade, especially in the Far East. Those concerns show the interest and the emergence of the United States into world politics and the rapidly growth in several aspects.

Many reasons have been given for this change from the concentration from home to foreign affair. The American economy had reached maturity, the revival and restatement of the traditional idea of “manifest destiny” of expansion, the situation in great power politics as Europeans nations. (Sellers, 1981)

Having this particularly thinking, United States was looking for expansionism, and the industrial revolution arrive to the United States accelerating the economy help because now they had the abilities to establishment overseas new alliances and gain respect, also the growth of the navy and army during the Civil War made the American military much more powerful, with batallions ready to itnervene in the continent and outside of the continent.

The establishment of clear ideals and principles in its approach to other nations as “open door policy” with China, support for the Panama Canal Project via doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine (and its influence on Latin America), economic expansionism (with its investments in foreign lands –Cuba) and its continuous belief in the Manifest Destiny helped to construct the “new empire”

In my opinion, once the civil war ended the United States were consolidated inside the country and had the ability, tools and potential to become an empire around the world, consolidated because the war not only destroy also helped to develop the country especially in the context of industrial revolution that helped to the “reconstruction” and the growth of the economy.
In addition, the amendemets of the constitution were crucial because it allowed to promote pinciples and values of freedom, spread of christian and democratic ideals around the world, it helped to expanding their beliefs. In other words, American Civil War contributed into a lot of transformation in the country because they realized was not convenient the isolationism, instead was better for them expand their power in different nations as Cuba, in Latin America, Phillipines, etc. and demostrate that they had an “open door dolicy” in terms of political, economic, religious ans social issues. Finally once again it’s been demostrated the power of the United States and that their values haven’t changed to much over time.

References

• Potter D. (1968), ‘Civil War’ in Woodward C. (1968), ‘A Comparative Approach to American History’ Voice of America forum series. Pp. 147-157
• Sellers C., May H. and Mcmillen N. (1981), ‘A synopsis of American History, Volume Two: Since the Civil War’ Fifth edition, pp 233-246
• Zucker, Michael. NATURAL RIGHTS and the POST-CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS. [online] Available at:

thttp://www.nlnrac.org/american/civil-war-amendments   [Accessed: 22 Mar 2013].

What is the intended scope of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Is it an example of an “individual rights theory” or a “collective rights theory”

The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791.
This topic is very controversial and exists different opinions about the right to bear arms; it depends who is interpreting the law. For example, on one hand, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting and recognized that the government can regulate gun rights, also the National Rifle Association insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms and the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias. On the other hand, the District of Columbia officials are aware of the problem of handgun violence in the United States and argued that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.
The history evidence that the Second Amendment has a close relation with the Declaration of Independence that say that “All men are created equal and have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Nowadays it is legal and legitimate bear arms for the defense of people and their self-defense to preserve the individual rights because is essential the liberty as it was in 1776 when people were protecting from tyrannical British government that was the original scope of the Second Amendment.
Interpretation of this amendment varies between those who believe it protects an individual right to own guns and those who do not; here is the dilemma if the Second Amendment is an example of an individual rights theory or a collective rights theory. On one hand, in the individual rights Supreme Court highlights the right to bear arms as constitutional, so the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, collective right could be argued «a well regulated Militia» and the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In my opinion the right to bear arms represent a danger for public safety because it increases the figure of crime and violence. I think the amendment should be abolish since the problem is that people most of the times don’t use it responsibly because there are not the enough restrictions.
I know that the constitution is republic and is trying to protect people’s rights but now weapons are creating a mass destruction with one person capable of killing dozens of people, so we cannot think only about the wishes or “safety” of one person, instead of it its necessary to reform, control and investigate the background checks and mental health of people that are using arms. Is evident that restrictions are not going to solve all the problems but in one way it will be an improvement and shrink of the murders and violence.
Basically the main objective of the government should be the safety of all their population and finish with the contradiction about the pursue of peace and struggle with the terrorism because inside the country they are the first that are promoting war.

What were the effects of American Independence on the establishment of a form of government in the United States of America?

After all the process of mercantilism and colonialism in America in 1775 begun the Revolutionary War that lasted for seven years. In the middle of the struggle of the independence the American people was starting a political revolution where politics and government were transformed, people argued over many issues as new state constitutions, the shape of a new national government, the separation of church and state, the regulation of prices, paper money and debt relief and obtain principles of liberty and natural rights to the conditions of their own lives.
In the midst of the war crisis en 1775 the Second Continental Congress had the task of creating a government with considerable power, which led to the approval of the “Articles of the Confederation”. The Congress had the responsibility of raising an army and establishing diplomatic relations, also in the Article 9 gives to the Congress the authority to regulate foreign affairs, declare war, mediate boundary disputes, the Article 2 stipulated that each state was to retain its sovereignty, freedom and independence and all the powers that are not delegated to the Congress. The Articles limited the action of the Congress forbidding from them raising troops or levying taxes.
The experience of war was terrifying and destructive the people caught in it, thousands of people served in the state militants, the militants in each settlement helped as a convenient recruiting system and legitimated the war. D
During the first years of the war men of all ranks, from rich and middle classes as well as the poor volunteered to fight the British and war was transformed into a poor man’s fight, wealthier men hired substitutes and communities filled their quotas with strangers lured by bonuses, for the poor and jobless, military bonus payments and the promise of a form of housing became attractive, but in the long term such bonuses rarely were paid. War created problems of housing, social order, public health and of course death was an imminent reality.
The loyalist during the revolutionary war suffered great losses of life, house, property, wealth, expulsion from a familiar community and relocation in a distant land, many loyalist were daunted by the prospect of confronting British military power or doubted that independence could be won, also the principled loyalism was the idea that every person respect their government as they owe obedience, duty to obey and respect to it.
By the time of the Revolution black Americans were involved and helped create a great slave rebellion, some slaves petitioned legislatures from freedom and tried to establish a colony by their own and some of African-Americans saw in England the promise of freedom with the idea that fighting would give them freedom in exchange, blacks saw in England the promise of freedom instead of tyranny. Some slaves ran away and went to the North where slavery was almost abolished.
As I mention before, in this context Revolutionary War changed profoundly politics and government, so the ideology of revolutionary republicanism constituted a revolution in thought, it was understood as the rejection of monarchy and its hierarchical authority, also the public authority was established by people contracting together for their mutual good, A basic part of the republicanism belief was the notion of governmental power, if removed from control and oversight, threatened to expand at the expense of liberty, political discipline flows upward from the self-regulated behavior of citizens who put the public good ahead of their own interests, the principle of political equality was another essential point of republicanism.
All of these differences of ideology and self-interests appeared dramatically in the debates over the creation of a written constitution that could serve as a way of regulate governmental behavior, that’s why most of states wrote new constitutions by 1780.
American constitutionalism goes in order to the preservation of liberty as the sovereignty resides in the people and that governments must function within clear constitutional limits, with the new constitution were considerably more democratic than the colonial regimes.
Moreover, other priorities in the agenda of revolutionary politics were: the process of secularization, loyalist threat and public safety, slavery, politics and economy. The process of secularization -separating church and state- was controversial because not everybody agreed with that. For some, separating church and state meant infidelity and disorder, while others expressed that the separation implied greater freedom and liberties for the citizens’ choice of faith, Finally in 1786 the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom was adopted, rejecting all connections between church and state and removing all religious tests for public office. Notwithstanding the establishment of religious freedom in American law religious discrimination didn’t end.
Loyalist threat and public safety raised troubling questions about freedom of speech and association for the Loyalists, security required stern measures against Loyalist counterrevolutionaries, and the Patriots were determined to punish those who had rejected the revolutionary cause. Punishing loyalists was popular and Patriots were arguing that the Loyalists had put themselves outside the protection of American law, others argued that affecting the Loyalists’ rights meant a disregard for the rights of all citizens and when the war ended most states repealed anti-Loyalist laws.
About slavery, the Revolutionary War stopped the slavery trade almost completely, but ending the slave trade had severe implications, it reduced the infusion of African Americans into the black population and there was already a cultural transformation of Africans into African-Americans and Antislavery became a significant force in national politics. In the North slavery was abolished but it didn’t happen in the South, it contribute and increased the sectional divergence between North and South.
Regarding politics and economy, the independence and Revolutionary War devastated the American economy, issues such as price and wage inflation, high taxation and growing debt were part of the new economic scenario, also people argued against governmental control of prices, disputes over paper money divided the American people as well, paper money became an issue as well as depreciation of colonial money had created an unexpected rise in prices. There were no ready solutions to the problems of debt, taxation, price control and paper money, for such issues often exceed the capacity of politics for compromise and resolution, for that continued the political tensions through the 1780’s.
To conclude, I think that the independence and revolutionary war changes dramatically the lives and expression of American mind and the founding of documents of the new form of government as the Articles of the Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights helped in this process of independence. These documents helped to distributed the power in many people and disappear the monarchic rule, also made a society and state more “democratic” but it does not mean that everybody was included, offered guarantees of individual rights in religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. The new form of government altered the relationships between state and its citizens and other countries, although is evident as politics used to be; those transformations generated disputes that are going to have consequences in the future.

What are the effects of colonialism and mercantilism in America?

After the decline of feudalism in Europe the continent suffered a series of transformations in many aspects that changes the old order.

Specially in the system of political economy based on mercantilism, that prevailed during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, that consists in national policies of accumulation of bullion or uncoined gold and silver, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade in which national strength could be maximized by limiting imports via tariffs and maximizing exports.

Also its important to mention that mercantilism motivated colonial expansion in America, understanding colonialism as a process when one group wants to subordinate another group in order to impose its ideas and establish control.

Mercantilism presupposed that nations were engaged in a continuous struggle for supremacy, but the advantages were centred specially in England that came to the Americas to colonized and established a dominant presence by the expansion of British settlements because after all colonies exists to benefit and contribute to the prosperity of the mother country, North America represented for them a source of raw materials that were cheap, then they shipped those back to be turned and finished goods that are manufactures, later they turn back the finish goods to the colony and sell them more expensive and the mother country keeps the profit.

As the colonial economy matured, British officials found additional regulations necessary to maintain mercantilist aims and to have control over the colonies, as laws forbidding colonies from producing their own goods, high prices for the products they wanted to import, forbidding colonies from trading with other European countries and maintaining the right to tax the colonies. England regulated trade but allowed colonists the right to control taxes, smugglers soon appears and became a profitable occupation in the colonies. Actually, the triangular trade in this logic affects the economy in North America and its society for the acceleration of immigration especially from African slaves.

Furthermore, colonists settled in North America not only for economy, also for political and religious freedom and improvement in the quality of life. The immigration and the population that increased dramatically in the eighteenth century created a diversified society in the American colonies that had an impact in the culture because everybody tried to establish a new form of organization but there were many different cultures trying to impose just one over the others, it implicated a more highly stratified society, this process actively encouraged the growth and political influence of a colonial elite.  Also, the colonies were largely the refuge of religious dissenters, so the variety of religions with different faiths and ideas that soon appeared in the colonies made the demand for religious freedom a constant in British settlement. As a result, it is important to mention that the economy starts as the first aim, but political and religious freedom were the other reasons to find a new form of government.

In my opinion, the consequences of a system as mercantilism in a long term cannot be sustained because people get angry and upset when they realized they don’t have any profit, have restrictions in their economy, high prices; in other words, this unbalanced produce inequality because not everybody has the same opportunities to commerce or achieve emancipation.

In addition, the crisis and conflicts not only in the economic aspect, also in politics, culture and religious were one of the causes of the Revolution when most of the people were looking for freedom, liberty, promote religious toleration, limit the power of the king, reach economic development, fix internal social conflicts and other problems that restrict their independence.