The Question

         In current Middle East policy and practice, England is the root, U.S. the branch. Id est: Do the English Experience and "Lessons" concerning Middle East involvement, (aka imperialism of one sort or another?), define/destine/direct the U.S. in its Middle East involvement?

         For example, Porter  (p. 356-7 & 366ff argues strongly for both sides, then concludes against the above question.  (Given the strength of both sides, it seems his conclusion is less warranted and more wished!) The most excellent debate responses will, no doubt, incorporate this 'Clash of Conclusions' set of ideas.

1. Main point and focus is English history, not the U.S.
2. Examples from our readings will be pertinent, whether they have been assigned or not. Choose wisely.
3. Also consult and incorporate other readings, examples, secondary source material, news, the BBC and other gov't texts, literature, polls, et alia &c.
4. Consult with your classmates to order things, and reduce duplication on April 24, Review Day
5. Present during the final exam time, April 30 at 10.
6. We will begin promptly on Apr 30 with:
   • Opening Statements on each side of 2 mins.
   • Presentations in support of a Sic or Non position as assigned (1 min)
   • Rebuttal (1 min)
   • 'Concessions' instead of support of assigned position welcome (which is good turn-about)
   • Closing statements will begin 15 minutes at 11:30, (less than 5 mins)
   • The Last Word will either take us to 11:50, or not.
7. I will collect a copy of notes from each student as part of the final grade: please make a legible copy to turn in to me before 11:50.

FINAL OBSERVATION(s) AND MY BEST WISHES

        Given the recent Midde-East-terrorist vs U.S. gov't and people conflict (which goes back before both Bushes and includes leadership and administrations of Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon if not also Eisenhower & Truman), the topic is more than germane. We need to learn about the issues, since we are involved. By terrorist standard, we are combatants as we sit here in Sugar House. And our government is carrying out many activities that we may have to answer for. We may carry the scars of this. We may carry the victory. Or both. But as heir to England's Middle East policies, and as continuator of many of them, we are certainly involved.

      The discipline of history and your interpretation of it will slave-drive/sink your contributions in this debate, unless you reflect on them and get them on the table. For example, if you agree with the above view of the U.S. being 'destined' by English history, you need to consider and deal with the Thucydidean View of cyclical, repetitive history. If you see England as influence, then you need to apply the Multiple Causation model without anarchy/confusion. If you see England as inspiration while avoiding mistakes, then you need to consider and deal with the Herodotean View. If you see economics at the top and/or bottom of it, then Marxist and/or other theories come front and center. We could add to this list, and probably should....

       Our history of England, then, while interesting and enjoyable and quirky, becomes serious and immediate.  Consequences loom and lurk. Not my usual ending to a course, but any course winding up in the modern day after covering issues like imperialism, World War, democracy, freedom, industrial revolution, trade dominance, world powers -- you see my point.   I hope your advancement in these areas will serve you well.