DOCSLIB.ORG

American Doctrine: the Foundation of Grand Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American Doctrine: the Foundation of Grand Strategy AMERICAN DOCTRINE: The Foundation of Grand Strategy Lamont Colucci Ripon College There is an organic American grand strategy, expressed over three centuries in multiple presidential doctrines. Through an examination of grand strategy and doctrines, a clear pattern of success and failure can be demonstrated. Doctrines and grand strategy continue to vanish from policy and public discourse. Often the concept of American Grand Strategy has nearly vanished from any discussion of national security and foreign policy. There is an assumption that expressions such as national security, foreign policy, national security doctrines, grand strategy, vital, national, and peripheral interests are the same concept; they are not. There are many definitions of Grand Strategy; they range along the spectrum from the simple to the complex. Grand Strategy is put into practice with the adoption of na- tional security doctrines. These doctrines should be the highest form of statecraft, but they are often ignored or misunderstood. This article examines the definition of Grand Strategy, why Grand Strategy is often ignored, how Grand Strategy relates to national security doctrines, how national security doctrines are created and im- plemented, what have been the common themes in American Grand Strategy and doctrines, and what the future holds for American Grand Strategy. It postulates the return to an organic American doctrine that can engage the current national security threats. Keywords: The United States, National Security, Foreign Policy, De- fense Policy, American Grand Strategy, Successful National Security Pol- icy, Themes in National Security Doctrines, Current National Security Threats, National Interest, Definition of Grand Strategy, History of U.S. National Security Doctrine, American Exceptionalism, Geopolitics, Pri- macy, U.S. Way of War, Transnational Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Presidential Doctrines. SUMMER 2018 133 AMERICAN DOCTRINE La doctrina estadounidense: los fundamentos de la gran estrategia Hay una gran estrategia americana que es orgánica, expresada a lo largo de tres siglos en múltiples doctrinas presidenciales. A través de el examen de doctrinas y de gran estrategia, puede ser demostrado un claro patrón de éxito y fracaso. Las doc- trinas y la gran estrategia continúan desvaneciéndose de las políticas y del discurso público. A menudo, el concepto de la Gran Estrategia Americana casi se ha desapa- recido de cualquier discusión sobre política exterior y seguridad nacional. Hay un supuesto que sostiene que las expresiones tales como seguridad nacional, política exterior, doctrinas de seguridad nacional, gran estrategia, intereses vitales, nacio- nales, y periféricos son el mismo concepto; pero no lo son. Hay muchas definiciones de Gran Estrategia; varían a lo largo de un espectro que va desde lo simple hasta lo complejo. La Gran Estrategia es puesta en práctica con las doctrinas de seguridad nacional. Estas doctrinas deberían ser la forma más elevada del arte del estado, pero a menudo son ignoradas o malinterpretadas. Este artículo examina la defin- ición de Gran Estrategia, por qué la Gran Estrategia es frecuentemente ignorada, cómo la Gran Estrategia se relaciona con las doctrinas de seguridad nacional, cómo las doctrinas de seguridad nacional son creadas e implementadas, cuáles han sido los temas comunes en las doctrinas y Gran Estrategia Americanas, y lo qué es de esperarse en el futuro de la Gran Estrategia Americana. Postula el retorno a una doctrina americana orgánica que puede vincularse con las actuales amenazas a la seguridad nacional. Palabras clave: Estados Unidos, Seguridad Nacional, Política Exterior, Política de Defensa, Gran Estrategia Americana, Temas de la Doctrina de Seguridad Nacional, Temas Actuales de Amenazas a la Seguridad Nacio- nal, Intereses Nacionales. 美国学说：大战略的根基 三个多世纪以来，多个总统学说中都体现了一种统一的美国大战略。通 过对大战略和学说进行检验，能够清晰证明成功和失败的模式。然而如 同以往，学说和大战略仍然没有在政策和公共话语中有所体现。美国大 战略概念几乎在任何关于国家安全和外交政策的探讨中消失。有假设认 为，诸如国家安全、外交政策、国家安全学说、大战略、重要利益、国 家利益和边缘利益之类的表述都是同一概念；但他们并非属于同一概 念。关于美国大战略的定义有很多；这些定义或简单或复杂。大战略随 着国家安全学说一起投入实践。这些学说本应成为最高级别的治国之 道，然而却时常被忽视或误解。本文检验了：大战略的定义、大战略为 何时常被忽略、国家安全学说是如何产生和实行的、大战略和学说中常 134 WORLD AFFAIRS Lamont Colucci 见的主题有哪些、以及大战略的未来是什么。本文假设了”统一的美国 学说”所能获得的回报，它能应对当前的国家安全威胁。 关键词：美国，外交政策，美国大战略，国家安全学说，国家安全威 胁，美国安全利益 The concept of American Grand Strategy has nearly vanished from discussions of national security and foreign policy. Although some schol- ars have reignited the debate, the debate tends to focus narrowly on the present, whereas true grand strategy harnesses centuries—in both direc- tions. Grand strategic visions for the United States were not discussed through the 2016 presidential election; some candidates developed pieces of national security and foreign policy, but few outlined how America should protect its national interests or presented a vision to guarantee American primacy, prosperity, and values. Sometimes, expres- sions such as national security, foreign policy, national security doctrines, grand strategy, vital, and other national interests are assumed to be the same concept. They are not. The dominant subject in national strategy since 9/11 has been counterterrorism, but intelligence and counterter- rorism policy are not national security policy, and national security policy is not national security strategy, which in turn is not grand strategy or national security doctrine. Nothing is more important to the survival of American civilization than a coherent, competent, and robust national security doctrine that can provide a foundation for grand strategy. An all-encompassing doctrine is needed for the 21st century, an American Doctrine that would adhere to nine grand strategy themes: American Exceptionalism, expansion, the empire of liberty and democracy pro- motion, free commerce, unilateralism, internationalism, the American way of war, geopolitics, and primacy. These themes must be embraced in a bipartisan way that affirms Daniel Webster’s (1831, 8) quotation: “[e]ven our party divisions, acrimonious as they are, cease at the water’s edge.” The result of adopting an American Doctrine based on America’s history, traditions, and values would be the inability of any particular administration to renounce such a doctrine. Grand strategy is the most critical form of statecraft. If security is the first order of any state, grand strategy is the method to achieve it. We have become focused on the present with an assumption that inertia will carry us through. The suc- cess of past administrations to create and harness a grand strategy has allowed this attitude to appear successful. As is illustrated here, there SUMMER 2018 135 AMERICAN DOCTRINE is a clear method of success and failure, as well as an ability to create a strategic solution that, in the American case, is done through strategic doctrine. After illustrating grand strategy, interests, and doctrines, this study will assess the themes of successful doctrine and the road forward. Grand strategy is the expression of doctrine in practice. National secu- rity doctrine serves grand strategy since grand strategy imposes a “vigorous coherence between ends and means” (Dueck 2015, 15). Simple definitions of grand strategy identify it as the “calculated relation of means to large ends” (Liebert 2014, 2). More complex definitions illustrate a “hierarchy of interests and principles” (Martel 2015, 339). Grand Strategy in practice announces and adheres to a permanent national security doctrine. The fundamental purpose of any state is to create grand strategy that attempts to harness military, economic, and political power to advance the nation (Strong 2005, 25). It implies the use of force to promote these interests (Sarkesian, Williams, and Cimbala 2007, 5). Grand strategy is married to hard power and military force; unlike domestic policy, it creates the conditions for either total triumph or total destruction (Art 2004, 1–2). Grand strategy is often ignored because it is inconvenient, hard to change, and subject to the “tyranny of the status quo” (Drezner 2011). Its devel- opment requires a formidable depth of knowledge. No electoral constit- uency holds a president accountable for not having a grand strategy even though having one is the raison d’être of the presidency. To ignore grand strategy is to engage in “episodic adventurism and incremental crisis man- agement” (Doherty 2013). Grand Strategy is further burdensome since it requires constant adaptation (F. W. Kagan 2008, 63). And the public and practitioners may easily ignore it because it tends to be translated through doctrines that start primarily with words, not actions. Vital and National Interests Nations’ hierarchy of interests is often divided among vital, national, and peripheral interests. Discussing national security requires an understanding of particularly the first two of these. Vital interests are existential; a civilization’s failure to protect them could bring about its extinction. A “state is unwilling to compromise” (Snow and Drew 2010, 4) these interests, which include population protection, territorial integrity, and sovereignty (Yarger and Barber 1997). For most of the last century, America’s greatest vital interests were preventing the Soviet Union or international communism from controlling Eurasia (Bush 1990) and protecting itself from the USSR’s nuclear threat. Primarily, Grand Strategy, expressed through doctrine, must address vital interests. 136 WORLD AFFAIRS Lamont Colucci Whereas vital interests tend to be blatant, national interests often cause more
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Bush Doctrine and the Use of Force: Reflections on Rule Construction and Application, 9 Loy
    Loyola University Chicago International Law Review Volume 9 Article 5 Issue 1 Fall/Winter 2011 2011 The uB sh Doctrine and the Use of Force: Reflections on Rule Construction and Application Paul F. Diehl University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Shyam Kulkarni University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Adam Irish University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lucilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul F. Diehl , Shyam Kulkarni & Adam Irish The Bush Doctrine and the Use of Force: Reflections on Rule Construction and Application, 9 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev. 71 (2011). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lucilr/vol9/iss1/5 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago International Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND THE USE OF FORCE: REFLECTIONS ON RULE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION Paul F. Diehl, Shyam Kulkarni, and Adam Irisht Abstract. .................................................. 71 I. Introduction. ......................................... 72 II. The Basic Elements of the Bush Doctrine .................... 73 III. Normative System v. Operating System Rules ................. 76 IV. Key Elements of a Prospective Bush Doctrine ................. 78 A. Authorization ..................................... 78 1. What is the Threat Threshold That Triggers the Doctrine? . 78 2. Who is Allowed to Authorize Action? . 83 3. Must This Be a Last Resort Option? . 89 B. Execution. ........................................ 91 1. Must the Act Be Exercised Multilaterally or Is Unilateral Action Permitted? . .. 91 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom Or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis
    Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 4 Spring 2005 Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr Recommended Citation Hannibal Travis, Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq, 3 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 1 (2005). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol3/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2005 Northwestern University School of Law Volume 3 (Spring 2005) Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights FREEDOM OR THEOCRACY?: CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ By Hannibal Travis* “Afghans are victims of the games superpowers once played: their war was once our war, and collectively we bear responsibility.”1 “In the approved version of the [Afghan] constitution, Article 3 was amended to read, ‘In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.’ … This very significant clause basically gives the official and nonofficial religious leaders in Afghanistan sway over every action that they might deem contrary to their beliefs, which by extension and within the Afghan cultural context, could be regarded as
    [Show full text]
  • Caspar Weinberger and the Reagan Defense Buildup
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Dissertations Fall 12-2013 Direct Responsibility: Caspar Weinberger and the Reagan Defense Buildup Robert Howard Wieland University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations Part of the American Studies Commons, Military History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Wieland, Robert Howard, "Direct Responsibility: Caspar Weinberger and the Reagan Defense Buildup" (2013). Dissertations. 218. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/218 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY: CASPAR WEINBERGER AND THE REAGAN DEFENSE BUILDUP by Robert Howard Wieland Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School Of The University of Southern Mississippi In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2013 ABSTRACT DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY: CASPAR WEINBERGER AND THE REAGAN DEFENSE BUILDUP by Robert Howard Wieland December 2013 This dissertation explores the life of Caspar Weinberger and explains why President Reagan chose him for Secretary of Defense. Weinberger, not a defense technocrat, managed a massive defense buildup of 1.5 trillion dollars over a four year period. A biographical approach to Weinberger illuminates Reagan’s selection, for in many ways Weinberger harkens back to an earlier type of defense manager more akin to Elihu Root than Robert McNamara; more a man of letters than technocrat.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues in US Foreign Policy: Things to Know
    APUSH Review – Thematic Traces: Foreign Affairs Treaties Actions Treaty of Paris Stamp Act Congress Treaty of Ghent XYZ Affair Jay’s Treaty Louisiana Purchase Pinkney’s Treaty Embargo, Non-Intercourse, Macon’s Bill # 2 Treaty of Guadalupe—Hidalgo Washington Naval Conference “Seward’s Folly” Dawes Plan Clayton—Bulwer Treaty London Economic Conference Hay—Pauncefote Treaty Yalta Conference Hay—Bunau-Varilla Treaty Marshall Plan Treaty of Versailles Berlin Airlift ABM Treaty Nixon goes to China SALT I/II Treaties Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Camp-David Accords War Powers Act Policies Issues No Entangling Alliances Oostend Manifesto Monroe Doctrine Trent Affair Open Door Policy Lynching of Italians in New Orleans 1891 Teller Amendment Chile vs. US 1892 Platt Amendment Venezuela Crisis 1895-96 Roosevelt Corollary Russo-Japanese War 1904 Dollar Diplomacy Mexican Revolution – Huerta & Caranza Missionary Diplomacy US troops in Vera Cruz 14 Points CIA in Guatemala Isolationism/Neutrality Legislation Suez Crisis Good Neighbor Diplomacy U2 Incident Cash and Carry Hungarian Uprising Destroyers for Bases Prague Spring Lend-Lease Dienbienphu Atlantic Charter Pueblo Incident Unconditional Surrender Bay of Pigs Truman Doctrine Cuban Missile Crisis Containment OPEC Oil Crisis Massive Retaliation Iranian Hostage Crisis Rollback Bombing of US Barracks in Lebanon Police Action Iran-Contra Affair McCarthyism Annexation of the Philippines Détente Panama Canal Vietnamization Human-Rights * These items do not generally cover actions related to US wars, which by their nature are entirely foreign affairs and can be included without listing them below. .
    [Show full text]
  • Venezuelan Affair and Roosevelt Corollary
    Venezuelan Affair and Roosevelt Corollary By Marcqus Gerome Ramos, Ashton Rowe, Joseph Weichsel, and Noel Rogers ● Venezuela is broke from civil war Context/ ● Refuses to pay debts/damages to Europe Background ● Germany + Britain and Italy impose naval blockade ● Germany okay as long as it’s peaceful and doesn’t take territory ● When Germany created blockade it gave US reason to intervene Why the ● Roosevelt sent his big stick, US navy, to stop blockade ● Monroe doctrine rejects Euro. influence in West Hemisphere U.S. got involved In 1902 war is near with Germany How the ● Theodore Roosevelt decides to switch control of Culebra to the US U.S. got Navy and go en route towards the caribbean involved ● Venezuela was involved with major debt so President Roosevelt tries to pardon and help by pushing back the forces of the combined Anglo-French-German ● New imperialist doctrine Roosevelt ● State of the Union Address ● Against European imperialism Corollary ● Venezuelan Crisis ● Venezuelan Crisis led to the making of the Roosevelt Corollary Outcome ● Forced the warships of Germany and Britain to withdraw ● Better relationship w/ Venezuela ● Which countries were involved? Review ● What were the effects of the Time!!! Venezuelan Crisis of 1902? ● What did the Roosevelt do for Venezuela? GOOD JOB YOU PASSED THE REVIEW!!! WOW YOU DIDN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT. I AM ASHAMED. YOU CALL YOURSELF FELLOW IB STUDENTS??????? ● Kshyk, Christopher J. “Roosevelt's Imperialism: The Venezuelan Crisis, the Panama Canal, and Works Cited the Origins of the Roosevelt Corollary.” Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse 7 (2015)., www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1002 ● Pike, John.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Jefferson Day, 2006
    Proc. 8001 Title 3—The President and online campaign to encourage teens to reject drug use and other nega- tive pressures. My Administration has also hosted a series of summits to educate community leaders and school officials on successful student drug testing. The struggle against alcohol abuse, drugs, and violence is a national, state, and local effort. Parents, teachers, volunteers, D.A.R.E. officers, and all those who help our young people grow into responsible, successful adults are strengthening our country and contributing to a future of hope for ev- eryone. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 11, 2006, as National D.A.R.E. Day. I call upon young people and all Americans to fight drug use and violence in our communities. I also urge our citizens to support the law enforcement officials, volunteers, teachers, health care professionals, and all those who work to help our children avoid drug use and violence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth. GEORGE W. BUSH Proclamation 8001 of April 13, 2006 Thomas Jefferson Day, 2006 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation Today, we celebrate the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. Few individuals have shaped the course of human events as much as this proud son of Vir- ginia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Career of Thomas Jefferson Race and Slavery in American Memory, I94J-I99J
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Richmond University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository History Faculty Publications History 1993 The trS ange Career of Thomas Jefferson: Race and Slavery in American Memory Edward L. Ayers University of Richmond, [email protected] Scot A. French Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/history-faculty-publications Part of the Race and Ethnicity Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Ayers, Edward L. and Scot A. French. "The trS ange Career of Thomas Jefferson: Race and Slavery in American Memory." In Jeffersonian Legacies, edited by Peter S. Onuf, 418-456. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHAPTER I 4 The Strange Career of Thomas Jefferson Race and Slavery in American Memory, I94J-I99J SCOT A. FRENCH AND EDWARD L. AYERS For generations, the memory of Thomas Jefferson has been inseparable from his nation's memory of race and slavery. Just as Jefferson's words are invoked whenever America's ideals of democracy and freedom need an elo­ quent spokesman, so are his actions invoked when critics level charges of white guilt, hypocrisy, and evasion. In the nineteenth century, abolitionists used Jefferson's words as swords; slaveholders used his example as a shield.
    [Show full text]
  • U. S. Foreign Policy1 by Charles Hess
    H UMAN R IGHTS & H UMAN W ELFARE U. S. Foreign Policy1 by Charles Hess They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other (George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001). These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages (National Security Strategy, September 2002 http://www. whitehouse. gov/nsc/nss. html). The historical connection between U.S. foreign policy and human rights has been strong on occasion. The War on Terror has not diminished but rather intensified that relationship if public statements from President Bush and his administration are to be believed. Some argue that just as in the Cold War, the American way of life as a free and liberal people is at stake. They argue that the enemy now is not communism but the disgruntled few who would seek to impose fundamentalist values on societies the world over and destroy those who do not conform. Proposed approaches to neutralizing the problem of terrorism vary. While most would agree that protecting human rights in the face of terror is of elevated importance, concern for human rights holds a peculiar place in this debate. It is ostensibly what the U.S. is trying to protect, yet it is arguably one of the first ideals compromised in the fight.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Foreign Policy Doctrines
    20 July 2015 Presidential Doctrines, the Use of Force and International Order Did the US’ military and legal reactions to the 9/11 attacks fundamentally transform its foreign and security policies? Joseph Siracusa doesn’t think so. He argues that the so-called Bush and Obama Doctrines have had more in common with previous presidential approaches than most people realize. By Joseph Siracusa for ISN In the ever-changing landscape of international relations, the extent to which the actions of the United States contribute to justice and order remains a source of contentious debate. Indeed, it is difficult to find a point in recent history when the United States and its foreign policy have been subject to such polarised and acrimonious reflection, both domestically and internationally. Notwithstanding recent ‘decline’ debates and the rise of emerging powers, the United States continues to hold a formidable advantage over its chief rivals in terms of formal power assets more than twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War. Few anticipated this situation; on the contrary, many assumed that, after a brief moment of unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union, international affairs would soon regain a certain symmetry. Instead, US hegemony is still par for the course. In this context, because the foreign policy ‘doctrines’ of American presidents remain an important driver of the outlook of the United States, these doctrines continue to play a significant role in shaping international order. Though they have veered from isolationist to interventionist to expansionist over the years, these doctrines in fact exhibit a remarkable continuity – even in the post 9/11 era.
    [Show full text]
  • American Exceptionalism at a Crossroads
    American Exceptionalism at a Crossroads Seongjong Song The main goal of this research is to review and examine how the narrative of American exceptionalism has evolved over time, inter alia, in different admini- strations of the United States. The frequency in the usage of “American exceptionalism,” which came into use during the twentieth century, has increased exponentially for the last couple of years. The term, which began as a beacon of light and democracy as envisioned in John Winthrop’s “a City upon a Hill” in 1630 has undergone significant changes over the last four cen- turies. American exceptionalism has been used to justify a variety of purpos- es, from territorial expansion, Wilsonian idealism, a global crusade against an “Evil Empire,” to a preemptive strategy, and even as a political weapon for punishing opponents. Lastly, especially in view of the ongoing war on terror- ism, three prominent strands of American exceptionalism are discussed: exemplarism, expansionism and exemptionalism. Key Words: American exceptionalism, foreign policy, ‘shining city on a hill,’ Manifest Destiny, Wilsonianism, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Bush Doctrine, exemplarism, expansionism, exemption- alism merican exceptionalism” is at a crossroads. What started out as a beacon “A of democracy and freedom in John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon “a City upon a Hill,” the term has evolved over a lengthy period of time spanning close to four centuries, during which it has been intermingled and imbued with distinct strands of narratives such as exemplarism, expansionism and exemptionalism. History came full circle when Russian President Vladimir Putin admonished President Obama for evoking “American exceptionalism” as a pretext to launch a military strike against Syria; a phrase, ironically, that had been invented by one *Seongjong Song ([email protected]) is a Visiting Professor at Chungnam National University.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifth Grade Patriot Program 2019-2020
    Fifth Grade Patriot Program 2019-2020 Name ____________________ Teacher___________________ Fifth Grade Patriot Program Name____________________ Teacher_________________________ Testing will occur from 8:30 – 9:00 a.m. each morning in the Library. Timeline Actual of Completion Steps to Patriots Completion Date Anytime Between 1._________ 1. Name and label 50 states with 80% accuracy November and March 2._________ 2. Complete a Community Service Project November 3.Bill of Rights 1. Flag Etiquette quiz December 2. Memorize and recite versus 1 of the Star Spangled Banner January Presidential Report Choose any TWO of the following: Anytime • Landmarks & memorials between • Interview a Patriot February - • Timeline Revolution March • State poster • American Creed Work must be completed by April 3, 2020 2 Fifth Grade Patriot Program Requirement Details 1. Name and label 50 states with 80% accuracy. (Pages 6-10) • Must be completed in one sitting • May use any combination of spelling and postal codes • Test may be retaken as needed 2. Pictorial Representation of the Bill of Rights • Read the Bill of Rights. • Then create a legal size poster (8 ½ x 14), PowerPoint presentation (which is to be printed out), or booklet presenting the Bill of Rights in symbolic form. • Include an illustration as well as a brief summary of the each amendment artistically. • Use drawings, cut-out pictures, or photographs, and in your own words, explain what each amendment means to you. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html 4. Flag
    [Show full text]
  • American = White ? 54
    1 Running Head: AMERICAN = WHITE? American = White? Thierry Devos Mahzarin R. Banaji San Diego State University Harvard University American = White? 2 Abstract In six studies, the extent to which American ethnic groups (African, Asian, and White) are associated with the national category “American” was investigated. Although strong explicit commitments to egalitarian principles were expressed (Study 1), each of five subsequent studies consistently revealed that both African and Asian Americans as groups are less associated with the national category “American” than are White Americans (Studies 2-6). Under some circumstances, a complete dissociation between mean levels of explicit beliefs and implicit responses emerged such that an ethnic minority was explicitly regarded to be more American than were White Americans (e.g., African Americans representing the U.S. in Olympic sports), but implicit measures showed the reverse pattern (Studies 3 and 4). In addition, Asian American participants themselves showed the American = White effect, although African Americans did not (Study 5). Importantly, the American = White association predicted the strength of national identity in White Americans: the greater the exclusion of Asian Americans from the category “American,” the greater the identification with being American (Study 6). Together, these studies provide evidence that to be American is implicitly synonymous with being White. American = White? 3 American = White? In 1937, the Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation of New York invited the Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal to study the “Negro problem” in America. The main message from Myrdal’s now classic study was captured in the title of his book, An American Dilemma (1944). Contrary to expectations that White Americans would express prejudice without compunction, Myrdal found that even sixty years ago in the deep South, White citizens clearly experienced a moral dilemma, “an ever-raging conflict” between strong beliefs in equality and liberty for all and the reality of their actions and their history.
    [Show full text]