Abnormal Factors Of Foreign Relations

In America, a culture of sustained racism and sexism influences foreign policymakers, which results in colonialism and imperialism, the desecration of nations, and militancy. The authors of the articles, Michael L. Krenn and Laura McEnaney, with differing skill sets, provide evidence of racial and gendered bias in foreign policy. In “The Adaptable Power of Racism,” Krenn expertly examines the history of racism within foreign policy; how racism adapted in the face of religious and scientific challenges, and the overall effects of racist foreign policies.1 McEnaney, in “Gender Analysis and Foreign Relations,” provides a lackluster account of the application of gender analysis to foreign policy, specifically in relation to the policies of the Cold War and Spanish-American War.2 The history of racism and sexism in America provide a blueprint for foreign policymakers, where racist militancy and sexist excuses override basic human rights.

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

Washington D.C. in the summertime is constantly perspiring, a rather miserable place to be. And, although the summer of 1949 was equally as dredged, Paul Nitze, an expert economist who lacked status in the United States government, was about to receive the opportunity of a lifetime. George Kennan, longtime diplomat and Russian studies expert, was looking to retire to his quiet farm in Pennsylvania, but he needed to leave a successor for the Policy Planning Staff. He decided on Paul Nitze. However, just months later after Russia succeeded in building and testing an atomic bomb and Nitze’s appeal for an assessment of U.S. Foreign Policy, Kennan on September 30 wrote, “I face the work of these remaining months with neither enthusiasm nor hope for achievement.” Obviously, the Cold War would be a large undertaking for any Russian expert in the State Department, however, it is more than likely that he was referring to working closely with colleague whose foreign policy tactics evidently began to differ greatly from his own as time would show.

When one can truly understand and uncover the meaning behind these articles and how they fit into one or more of the ‘boxes’ we call paradigms and perspectives. In order to dissect and analyze the case of the Cold War, especially its origins, one must not only skim through the text and uncover main ideas, but also must also relate the readings to these paradigms and establish one’s own ideals and opinions regarding the study of international relations. Personally, I believe the articles associated with the origins of the Cold War along with Professor Katzenstein’s lecture on the topic provide strong arguments for the use of a ‘middle fish’ perspective and a ‘big fish’ paradigm: domestic politics and realism, respectively. Through George Kennan’s personal accounts, experience and analysis at both the time of the Cold War’s inception and forty-plus years later after the fall of the Soviet Union, a point is made regarding the nature of Soviet expansion as an offensive maneuver, which he believed must be contained by a defensive strategy. This point of conflicting strategies by the U.S. and (especially) the Soviet Union provides the reader with a realist argument and perspective. Also, in his second piece, which details remarks made to the Council on Foreign Relations in 1994, Kennan explains that instead of whole-heartedly adopting

Race relations can be defined as “the relations between members of two or more human races, esp within a single community.” One of the most prominent time periods in racial history was the immediate decades following

In assessing interpersonal relationships, the concept of race is a powerful factor. The United States upholds a problematic legacy in regard to the power discrepancies between racial minorities and white individuals. The race issues that currently exist in the U.S. are of unacceptable quantities but are also progressing through a path towards larger conflict that can be analyzed through theories of race and ethnicity, specifically critical race theory. After an overview of critical race theory, there will be an analysis of the historical context of the U.S., looking at slavery and segregation. A discussion of the existing systemic issues that reinforce power imbalances will follow. Subsequently, there will be an examination of “white privilege” and the violence that can emerge out of this notion. The stance that is being taken here is not merely that there is severe racism in U.S., but that in using critical race theory, one can see that race issues are so deeply rooted in society to the extent that it reinforces future inequality and violence.

Introduction: Race has always been a major topic in American history, and it continues to be today. People are constantly fighting about race, but why? Why and how did race become such a big part of the United States of America’s political, economic, and social culture? And why is does it cause so much sectional division within the United States? Race has been such a controversial and major topic that, in order to end racial problems, a war had to be fought, court cases had to be won, and laws had to be passed banning it. The topic can be traced back to beginning of America’s history as the colonies, and can be followed through past the Civil War.

Thomas Borstelmann scrutinizes the international extent of American cultural attitudes while skillfully demonstrating the remuneration of viewing domestic history in a universal framework. He brilliantly demonstrated the extensive impact of civil rights movements on domestic and international developments on the issue of race, which had a tremendous implication on U.S. foreign relations. His thorough understanding of American racial and cultural history makes him an exceptional authority on race relations of Presidents Harry S. Truman to George H. Bush.

Both authors use history to explain the negative interactions between people of different ethnicities. Parrillo reveals why prejudice is frequent within minority groups and Fredrickson discusses the four different ways people of different ethnicities have associated with one another. Both Parrillo and Fredrickson discuss societal interactions and how whites are always the dominant group that remind the minorities of their superiority. Whites have denied African Americans equality and assimilation to white culture and deemed the Chinese as conniving competition for jobs. Throughout history, whites have never been on the receiving end of prejudice or anything less than dominant. Although both authors do not view whites in a negative light, both

Borstelmann begins his book by laying the groundwork of race and foreign relations. He shows how racial inequalities were predominant in the United States and how these inequalities caused conflict with the foreign relations of other countries. The United States presented itself as the leader of the free world; however the racial inequalities brought negative attention to the United States and many eyes were upon them to see how legitimate their claim was. The Soviets were

The Second World War transformed the United States in several different ways. Over twelve million Americans will serve in the military, women will work in positions previously held by men in defense factories, along with blacks and whites working side-by-side in the military and war jobs, and the mass movements of the population throughout the country to find high paying defense job. Beth Bailey and David Farber’s book, The First Strange Place: Race and Sex in World War II Hawaii discusses the “cultural contact” between Americans. Men and women who are joined by common nationality, but are “divided by other identities – those of region, religion, gender, class, of race and ethnicity.”

This paper sets out to delineate how historians have debated the uses and misuses of racial concepts over the last five decades. Historians have approached the concept of race within the context of the history of the United States in various

Furthermore, women are often seen as a symbol of cultural preservation and a measure of family honor. In conditions of war and colonial rule, which represents an attack on men’s honor and dignity, attention to women’s roles as prescribed by cultural tradition is often intensified. However, the unusual conditions of war and resistance to colonial rule also may provide openings for women to reconfigure their roles and rights, based on new needs of society.

In “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” Joan W. Scott provides many angles to explore the relevancy of gender. The first thing that needs to be examined is her argument. The main argument that Joan W. Scott is trying to make is how beneficial to history using gender as a category for analysis would turn out. Another factor that needs to be made in assessing her article is how she presents her argument and findings. Scott formats her article with a beginning, middle, and end. She begins by defining “gender,” and how that term has been used in general. She goes on to describe some of the theories that have analyzed gender. The next part that she explains is how, of late, politics has been coincided with the analysis of gender. Finally, she ends her paper by providing her bottom-line opinion about the analysis and approach of gender.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism