HIST 450 1970s Reading Responses

HIST 450 Reading Response One (based on Schulman, xi-xvii, 1-117, 253-57)

Note: Reading responses for this class may be typed or hand-written and should answer all of the questions provided the week before. If you miss class, you can find the questions on my website. Unlike most assignments in this class, these are not formal assignments and they will not be evaluated on spelling or grammar. Focus instead on articulating creative ideas and showing evidence of your engagement with the reading.

1. In one ordinary-length sentence (or at most two sentences), write down the main thesis for the whole book. Read both Schulman’s introduction and conclusion to do this. Be sure to use entirely your own words rather than simply quoting Schulman.

2. In one ordinary-length sentence, write down in your own words the main thesis of chapter 1. Then identify one idea or passage in this chapter that you find particularly surprising or interesting. In four or five sentences, explain what that idea or passage involves and why you find it so important or intriguing.

3. Do the same for chapter 2.
4. Do the same for chapter 3.
5. Do the same for chapter 4.

HIST 450 Reading Response Two (based on Schulman, 121-257, xii-xvii)

1. In one ordinary-length sentence per chapter, write down in your own words the main thesis of each chapter. Do this for chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

For the next three questions, write about five to seven sentences per answer:

2. Select one of the above five chapters and explain what you found particularly interesting or provocative in it.

3. Do the same for another chapter.

4. What are Schulman’s own politics or values? Offer some specific examples from the book that reveal his own positions. Feel free to refer to the first half of the book too.

HIST 450 Reading Response Three (on Suri, Buckaloo, & Oropeza)

For a good response, write about five to seven sentences per answer.

1. After reading the primary sources edited by Suri (“Détente, Human Rights…”), select two primary sources that make an interesting pairing. Explain why you find this pairing interesting. For instance, you might write about two sources that offer different views on the same issue, or you might write about unexpected parallels between two different sources.

2. Based on Buckaloo’s article, think of three adjectives that capture different aspects of Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy. For each adjective, briefly describe one specific example from Buckaloo’s article that supports your choice of adjective. Then offer a brief overall evaluation: If you were President Carter, how would you have handled policy toward Nicaragua? Could you have done better? If so, how?

3. What is Oropeza’s thesis? (Formulate it entirely in your own words.) Then think about how Oropeza’s argument and evidence relates to Schulman’s book. Provide one or two specific ways in which Oropeza’s article complements an idea that Schulman makes. (Give specific page references to both Oropeza and Schulman). Then provide one or two specific ways in which Oropeza’s article contradicts or goes beyond what Schulman says in his book. (Again, give specific page references.)
Note: For HIST 450, it is important to think about how a detailed research paper like Oropeza’s relates to Schulman’s book, because you will be doing the same exercise for your own HIST 450 paper. That is, in your final paper’s historiography section, you will need to show how your own research complements, contradicts, or goes beyond Schulman’s book.