Matching Items (6)
Filtering by
- Creators: Barrett, The Honors College
Description
At odds with the Axis powers in the Second World War, the American government
began the task of dealing with an influx of Europeans seeking refugee status stateside, even before the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. American interest in the global situation, nevertheless, did not officially begin after the initial attack on the 7th of December. Before that date, the United States government had to address refugees seeking asylum from European countries. Often studied, German emigration to the United States at times took center stage in terms of the refugee situation after the Nazi regime enacted anti- Semitic legislation in Germany and its occupied nations, prior to the American declaration of war. France, however, had a crisis of its own after the Germans invaded in the summer of 1940, and the fall of France led to a large portion of France occupied by Germany and the formation of a new government in the non-occupied zone, the Vichy regime.
France had an extensive history of Jewish culture and citizenship culture prior to 1940, and xenophobia, especially common after the 1941 National Revolution in France, led to a “France for the French” mentality championed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, Chief of State of Vichy France. The need for the French Jewish population to seek emigration became a reality in the face of the collaborationist Vichy government and anti-Semitic statutes enacted in 1940 and 1941. French anti-Semitic policies and practices led many Jews to seek asylum in the United States, though American policy was divided between a small segment of government officials, politicians, individuals, and Jewish relief groups who wanted to aid European Jews, and a more powerful nativist faction, led by Breckenridge Long which did not support immigration. President Roosevelt, and the American government, fully aware of the situation of French Jews, did little concrete to aid their asylum in the United States.
began the task of dealing with an influx of Europeans seeking refugee status stateside, even before the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. American interest in the global situation, nevertheless, did not officially begin after the initial attack on the 7th of December. Before that date, the United States government had to address refugees seeking asylum from European countries. Often studied, German emigration to the United States at times took center stage in terms of the refugee situation after the Nazi regime enacted anti- Semitic legislation in Germany and its occupied nations, prior to the American declaration of war. France, however, had a crisis of its own after the Germans invaded in the summer of 1940, and the fall of France led to a large portion of France occupied by Germany and the formation of a new government in the non-occupied zone, the Vichy regime.
France had an extensive history of Jewish culture and citizenship culture prior to 1940, and xenophobia, especially common after the 1941 National Revolution in France, led to a “France for the French” mentality championed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, Chief of State of Vichy France. The need for the French Jewish population to seek emigration became a reality in the face of the collaborationist Vichy government and anti-Semitic statutes enacted in 1940 and 1941. French anti-Semitic policies and practices led many Jews to seek asylum in the United States, though American policy was divided between a small segment of government officials, politicians, individuals, and Jewish relief groups who wanted to aid European Jews, and a more powerful nativist faction, led by Breckenridge Long which did not support immigration. President Roosevelt, and the American government, fully aware of the situation of French Jews, did little concrete to aid their asylum in the United States.
ContributorsPalumbo, Alex Paul (Author) / Fuchs, Rachel G. (Thesis director) / Simpson, Brooks (Committee member) / Cardoza, Thomas (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine why the Russian government has been taking political, economic, and military actions in Belarus and Ukraine, and the extent to which the Russian people support these actions. Many observers in the West seem to believe that the Russian government is forcing its political will onto Russian citizens. However, public opinion research indicates that Russian citizens express a genuine support for the regime's political behavior in neighboring countries. Russian citizens seem to support the decisions to build closer relations with countries they consider culturally significant or culturally similar to themselves. Perhaps the clearest examples of these sentiments occur in relationships with Belarus and Ukraine. This is especially apparent when compared to Russian relations with the Baltic nations. Although these nations are home to a large numbers of Russians, the citizens of Russia do not consider the Baltics as significant as Belarus or Ukraine because of pronounced cultural differences. In this context, it seems as though Russian public opinion drives government action toward international relations with the Near Abroad nations perhaps just as much as the government influences public opinion.
ContributorsFranko, Blake Isaac (Author) / Siroky, David (Thesis director) / Von Hagen, Mark (Committee member) / Benkert, Volker (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
This piece highlights the Trump administration's history of diplomatic relations with states in East Asia (specifically North Korea (DPRK), South Korea (ROK), Japan, and China). The research in this essay primarily focuses on Trump's public attitudes towards these states during his presidential campaign, and seeks to establish if any negative statements towards East Asian states have affected social and diplomatic relations after Trump's inauguration. Overall, residents of Japan and South Korea had an overwhelmingly negative view of Trump during his campaign, primarily due to cultural differences and dissatisfaction with Trump's blunt, unpredictable demeanor which clashes with Japanese and Korean social norms. While public opinion of Trump was still low in mainland China, Trump's attitude is reminiscent of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution which serves as the societal and governmental framework of the modern People's Republic of China. Therefore, individuals living in China were more likely to be attracted to Trump's personality \u2014 this evident through the popularity of Trump "fan clubs" which gained popularity on Chinese social media websites during the American presidential campaign period. In terms of the bilateral relations between the U.S. and each East Asian state, Donald Trump's negative statements towards China, Japan, and South Korea during his campaign did not significantly impact diplomatic relations during his presidency. While Trump is vocally opposed to certain initiatives that are supported by these heads of state, he has demonstrated a willingness to discuss issues with these leaders. While this openness is not completely evident in U.S. \u2014 Southeast Asian relations, the leaders of Northeast Asia have set aside Trump's controversial campaign statements and have reciprocated his willingness to discuss important issues.
ContributorsGarvey, Lauren Agnes (Author) / Simon, Sheldon (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
A study of the personal rule of the seventeenth century French king, Louis XIV analyzing his decision making process as an absolutist ruler. A special focus on Louis' foreign policy influences and how he conducted his government including the roles of ministers, ambassadors, the French court and nobility, and councils in the way he made decisions.
ContributorsSnittjer, Molly Helena (Author) / Wright, Kent (Thesis director) / Fuchs, Rachel (Committee member) / Hopkins, Richard (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
The United States is an empire. It was founded as such and continues to be one to this day. However, during the most prominent periods of imperial expansion, anti-imperialist organizations and politicians often rise up to oppose these further imperialist actions. This thesis paper examines the rhetoric used by these organizations and politicians, particularly through their speeches and platforms. The primary focus is on the role of American exceptionalism in this rhetoric, and what American anti-imperialism not rooted in this concept looks like. This analysis will be done by looking at a few key specific texts from these organizations and politicians, including (but not limited to) the platform of the Anti-Imperialist League and the speech Representative Barbara Lee gave to explain her lone no vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan in 2001.
ContributorsRemelius, Justin (Author) / Avina, Alexander (Thesis director) / Goodman, Brian (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor, Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened".
- John F Kennedy
For over a century now, the United States has publicly professed a commitment to upholding human rights around the world, yet to this day economically supports numerous dictatorships and undemocratic regimes that flout human rights on a daily basis. The rhetoric of American politicians would imply that human rights and democracy are a priority in America's foreign policy, yet given US support for autocracies, both of these principles seem forgotten. If not respect for democracy and human rights, what is truly influencing America's relationship with these countries? I hypothesize that a country's resource availability will be the best predictive factor for its economic relationship with the US, followed by its military involvement with the US, and finally, human rights records will be the least predictive factor. The study found that a country's military cooperation with the US is the best predictive factor regarding our economic relationship, resource availability comes with a weak correlation, and human rights abuses very rarely substantively impact our economic relationships.
- John F Kennedy
For over a century now, the United States has publicly professed a commitment to upholding human rights around the world, yet to this day economically supports numerous dictatorships and undemocratic regimes that flout human rights on a daily basis. The rhetoric of American politicians would imply that human rights and democracy are a priority in America's foreign policy, yet given US support for autocracies, both of these principles seem forgotten. If not respect for democracy and human rights, what is truly influencing America's relationship with these countries? I hypothesize that a country's resource availability will be the best predictive factor for its economic relationship with the US, followed by its military involvement with the US, and finally, human rights records will be the least predictive factor. The study found that a country's military cooperation with the US is the best predictive factor regarding our economic relationship, resource availability comes with a weak correlation, and human rights abuses very rarely substantively impact our economic relationships.
ContributorsPlummer, Gage (Author) / Hanson, Margaret (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05