Course talk:HIST102/History 102 - Zones of Interaction TEAM B - Debate

Sommer the assignment is looking great. I think it would be stronger if we separated it into several paragraphs rather than one. I have also added back in the part I wrote about South Africa, as I feel it is an excellent example that makes good use of the information we studied in the lessons. Other than that, I just proofread it and fixed up some stuff here and there to try and make the argument stronger. Here is what I was thinking, if this is okay I will post it as the actual wiki page, please let me know on this discussion page or by email. Thanks and enjoy! *update* Hi I didn't hear back from you so decided to go with it. Let me know via email if you plan to make any additional changes please :)

First section post

Hi Micki,

I logged on today to make the final edits, what you have done is amazing. I really regret the miscommunication and I'm glad we're working together, we don't need the others! Anyway, looks good...shall we post? I think I'll go ahead and post it.

Talk soon.

Final Edit

Sorry Micki, I dod do a quick edit, I didn't change anything you did, just the ending paragraph had some issues of work order - my bad. Anyway, I re-posted the final edit under your previous one. I'm new to Wiki, and I hope I'm posting right.

I'll re-arrange the biblio alphabetically and put it on vista right now.

Sommer--SommerSawchuk 21:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

==

finished! ==

Great work. I deleted the previous post and moved your edit up to being the only section. Let's roll with this one :)--Mickilee 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Last minute edit

Sorry Micki, you may notice that the debate I posted had some last minute changes. I elaborated on your South Africa info, take a read, I hope you're okay with it. I did add more words though, my bad. We need to make sure that the next submission is within the max limit. I've posted the edit on the main page.

It's prob just you and me again, so I'll get reading and formulating tonight.

Talk soon,

Sommer

rebuttal

Hey its fine. I sent you an email about the rebuttal, it's quite short and I thought we could brainstorm on here about the other teams opening statements by tomorrow at 9. Hopefully we can have this one all together by the 10th. Jeremy said he wants to be more involved, so feel free to post here with your brainstorm Jeremy! This is what I have so far. I thought it would be good for me to do the main bulk of this portion of the assignment, since Sommer worked so hard on the opening statement. Please build on what I have written! I've covered what they said on India (see page 1006-7 of the text) and Japan (i'm a japanese studies major...so i don't know where to quote this from. I'll look it up) I don't know how to reply about Europe quite yet as their first paragraph is a little confusing. (Sommer, help???) I've also put some stuff together about their final paragraphs that we can build on. Let's try not to go to far over on the 500 word count. Good work so far!

Although many points were made by the opposing group about examples where states have gotten along and prospered alongside each other, each of these cases did not come to be without social upheaval and segregation. With the East India Company’s unwanted involvement in India came social unrest, rebellion, and rejection of British Imperialism. Although Education was brought to India by the British, their rule was undesired by many, and resulted in the forming of the Indian National Congress in 1885 who were seeking to obtain self-rule for India. Not only did British rule ensure that Indians were seen as second class citizens, but objections against imperial rule were frequently met by violently repressive measures. For India, the British involvement brought about forced and sometimes unwanted change through repressive means.

In the case of Japan, it was only after the decimation of the Japanese way of life through WWII that relations between Japan and other nations involved improved to what they are today. As peace was only achieved through a war which devastated millions, involved Japanese imperialists in a power hungry and vicious take-over of Manchuria and Korea, and resulted in the use of the most vicious war weapon seen in the history of human kind, the interaction of Japan with these countries can be seen as anything but stable. It can be argued that if a nation only achieves peace through such means, the interaction can be seen as that which bred great social upheaval and instability.

The main mechanisms of social change described by group A, those being conflict, tension and adaptation, and diffusion of innovation fail to adequately prove zones of interaction as places of stability. The same mechanisms can be described as well as ingredients for a revolution. Although revolution is often necessary to achieve change, it is often closely associated with social upheaval and repression.

The point made clear by team A is that stability between zones of interactions only comes through frequently violent social change. As the nature of stability and social integration should not be associated with a violent means, this justification fails to adequately prove these interactions as positive, since the beneficial results described by team A only manifest after periods of great civil unrest.

--Mickilee 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft 2 - Intro added for rebuttal - feel free to edit, it's a little heavy

The argument that zones of interactions between cultural groups in various parts of the world have historically been locations of social integration and stability reveals that such areas have also experienced a history of social upheaval and segregation. In fact, because of a history of social upheaval and segregation, these areas remain characterized by persistent tension, and even violence. By using examples of Europe, India, and Canada to argue that zones of interaction are areas of relative peace and integration, Team A fails to recognized that these three areas are socially stratified to the advantage of a dominant group. Team A also uses the argument in diffusion to explain social integration and stability between cultural groups; however, they fail to acknowledge that dominant and oppressive groups control diffusion. Diffusion theory may be used to explain an integrated social structure; it neglects to explain social stability. Diffusion occurs due to the proximity of cultures; however, it does not prevent tension between majority and minorities groups due to an imbalance in power, and the underrepresentation of oppressed groups. A more accurate description of areas of social integration and segregation is that such areas are dominating by a majority that keeps minority groups in check through discrimination and marginalization. The portrait of social stability in zones of interactions is in fact a dominant power’s success in quelling threats to power from less powerful groups.

We rebut Team A’s evidence on India. India’s Western influence did not integrate society nor stabilize it, rather the East India Company’s unwanted involvement in India came social unrest, rebellion, and rejection of British Imperialism. Although Education was brought to India by the British, their rule was undesired by many, and resulted in the forming of the Indian National Congress in 1885 who were seeking to obtain self-rule for India. Not only did British rule ensure that Indians were seen as second class citizens, but objections against imperial rule were frequently met by violently repressive measures. For India, the British involvement brought about forced and sometimes unwanted change through repressive means. In the case of Japan, it was only after the decimation of the Japanese way of life through WWII that relations between Japan and other nations involved improved to what they are today. As peace was only achieved through a war which devastated millions, involved Japanese imperialists in a power hungry and vicious take-over of Manchuria and Korea, and resulted in the use of the most vicious war weapon seen in the history of human kind, the interaction of Japan with these countries can be seen as anything but stable. It can be argued that if a nation only achieves peace through such means, the interaction can be seen as that which bred great social upheaval and instability.

Although Canada may now be an area of relative social stability across different cultural borders, is has historically been a zone of conflict. Ever since the first explorers set foot on North America, there have been almost constant struggles such as the unfair treatment of the Natives of Canada by the colonizing European countries, different colonial powers fighting over who owned the new lands as well as conflicts in between different European countries which spilled over into North America.

South America is another zone of interaction which has been plagued with conflict throughout much of its history. Countries such as Brazil are the diverse societies they are today, as Team A claims, because of all ongoing strife between different cultural groups. The colonization of South America by the Spanish lead to the annihilation of the vast majority of native populations across the continent by way of warfare and disease. Brazil was again a zone of interaction when Europeans started to capitalize on the cross-Atlantic slave trade, taking millions from Africa and forcing them into slavery in the plantations of Brazil and other countries around it.

• (Put in a couple paragraphs to counter their points on brazil and Canada. feel free to edit)-Jeremy

--JeremyButt 22:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The main mechanisms of social change described by Team A, those being conflict, tension and adaptation, and diffusion of innovation fail to adequately prove zones of interaction as places of stability. The same mechanisms can be described as well as ingredients for a revolution. Although revolution is often necessary to achieve change, it is often closely associated with social upheaval and repression. The point made clear by Team A is that stability between zones of interactions only comes through frequently violent social change. As the nature of stability and social integration should not be associated with a violent means, this justification fails to adequately prove these interactions as positive, since the beneficial results described by team A only manifest after periods of great civil unrest.

Note to Micki (and Jeremy)

Micki, your rebuttal work is awesome! I added an intro to the rebuttal, basically summarizing our disagreement. Before I even looked at your stuff, I had made my own notes, I was so happy to see that we were on the same page from the get go. Anyway, I don't know where Jeremy made his contribution. He didn't take the time to get to know Wiki until the last minute, so I can understand his confusion. We've got great stuff here, I hope if he has decent stuff, it makes its way here.

I've decided that I'll log on tonight after you and Jeremy have had a chance to make your final contributions. I will add the rebuttal about Europe and do final edits. Are you okay with that?

Talk soon,

Sommer

Rebuttal Edit

Sommer, we are making a really strong argument! Great work! The intro really adds strength, and I like how you pulled together the portion that I wrote. I feel that we can be posted on the wiki page, although feel free to edit more from the wiki page, Sommer and Jeremy. I just did some quick editing and posted it under our opening statements, but didn't find much to change. --Mickilee 19:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hi everyone. I'll be posting the closing statements late tomorrow night (saturday), which you can feel free to edit (but please don't delete my work!) We should really try to keep to the length restrictions for this part of the assignment. I realize that there is more that can be said if we use more words, but that gives our argument an unfair advantage over the other team's. Please post on the discussion changes you are making so that it is not a surprise for me when I log on and try and figure out where our previous train of thought disappeared to...it's hard unless you explain what/why you changed something.

Closing Statements

Here we go! Once we reach a final copy I will post it to the wiki main page. It's already 300 words and the MAX word count is 250 so let's not make it too much longer. Sommer, let me know if I misinterpreted anything you had written! I'll be checking back periodically before the 14th.

Throughout this debate, meaningful points have been made by both sides. Although Team B still is convinced of the truth of our point, we have come to recognize that although upheaval and segregation are often present in different zones of interaction, these situations are often infused with examples of integration.

In defence of our position, it seems that Team A misinterpreted some of our points in made in our opening statements. Mainly, they state that we believe the fall of the Ottoman Empire to be due to foreign ideas, although in our opening statements the damage caused by foreign influence was only one point of many in our portion of the debate. Read more closely, it can be determined that our stance saw nationalistic sentiments as the main cause of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, not foreign ideas. Furthermore, in response to the additional discussion on the slave trade, we argue that since it was Europeans who were the primary purchasers of the slaves for centuries they cannot be given credit for having a directly positive influence since this trade would not have flourished if the strong demand did not exist from European buyers.

Although this is a debate that has the potential to carry on continuously due to its substantial nature, we believe that it cannot be denied that upheaval in a zone of interaction is always present to some degree even if it later transforms into an area of successful integration. Team A has made some strong points which helped our own view change and move in different directions, although we are still convinced of the truth of our side of the argument.

Closing Statements-self edit

Hi again, it seems like you two are pretty busy so I decided to do a bit of editing myself.

Throughout this debate, meaningful points have been made by both sides. Although Team B still is convinced of the truth of our point, we have come to recognize that although upheaval and segregation are often present in different zones of interaction, these situations are often infused with examples of integration.

In a last defence of our position, it seems that Team A misinterpreted some of our points in made in our opening statements. Mainly, they state that we believe the fall of the Ottoman Empire to be due to foreign ideas, although in our opening statements the damage caused by foreign influence was only one point of many in our portion of the debate. Read more closely, it can be determined that our stance saw nationalistic sentiments as the main cause of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, not foreign ideas. Furthermore, in response to the additional discussion on the slave trade, we argue that since it was Europeans who were the primary purchasers of the slaves for centuries they cannot be given credit for having a directly positive influence since this trade would not have flourished if the strong demand did not exist from European buyers.

Although this is a debate that has the potential to carry on continuously due to its substantial nature, the nature of this assignment has allowed us to at least graze the surface of this topic and enable us to realize its depth. In closing, we believe that it cannot be denied that upheaval in a zone of interaction is always present to some degree even if it later transforms into an area of successful integration, as Team A pointed out. Despite this, Team A has made some strong points which helped our own view change and move in different directions. Thanks to their strong argument, we were able to consider the topic in greater depth and with more thought than thought possible, although we still remain convinced of the segregation and upheaval that is possible with different zones of interaction.

---

I guess ill post this up on the wiki page in case you are unable to get back to me tonight so its ready to go for the tomorrow due date. cheers! --Mickilee 02:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)