This is very important, when looking at previous documents there were almost no mentions of the importance of education except in India because they wanted to learn their history as well. However this is a different approach, because this was following communism the opportunity for everyone to receive a good education was very important. Rather than just focusing on fighting, having weapons and keeping people out, they really focused on their society...

It is very refreshing to see how they are able to point out the problems such as racism and fascism as a product of previous imperialism. It always seems to go back to when Empires such as the English taking over new territory and making themselves the dominant race by separating the ones that look physically different (Africans, native Indians, etc)

This is surprising, after reading the approach taken by Gandhi and Nehru, it is one of the first to read of a leader wanting to take violent actions to ensure their independence. But, his excuse is not a great one, it's as if it was a competition (Cold War like maybe) we have to be destructive and violent before they become destructive and violent

When Minh referred to themselves as buffaloes and horses to the French people, it instantly gave me the image of the relationship of the native Indians with the British when they were colonizing the Americas. Minh portrays the Vietnamese as innocent and nature-like and the French as destructive and bad

This is very similar to a document we have annotated last week on India. ". So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what war takes place; we will not take part in it unless we have to defend ourselves." This is a kind of nationalism represented by purpose. In this case, the purpose would be to defend themselves from being colonized again. It's very similar to what was mentioned by Nehru in the sense that Minh is not focusing on other wars and battles except the ones they re personally involved in.

Right from the beginning, you can see how this declaration is some sort of adaption as the declaration of independence of the United States in 1776. It emphasizes on the "all men are created equal" and the pursuit of life liberty and happiness. However, as hard as it was to interpret then is the same now. All men are created equal, does men refer to all humans or all males. Again, do frenchmen make the cut, considering that in previous times they were once all prisoned...

Again, Nehru is displaying a big image of independence. He is standing on his ground about having to stick for what he believes. If it is not their true beliefs there is no reason to insult India in a war they don't agree with. However, even while remaining neutral, he still states that if it comes to it, they will defend themselves against anyone.

Nehru, is portraying a true sense of nationalism. He s standing for what he believes in (not communism) and has the belief of his new independent country India, will be able to stand tall by itself to defend for what they truly stand for. I love the how he also mentions the atomic bombs... it makes him look very prepared and certain that he knows what he is standing up against.

I find this to be very surprising, for a man at this time period to fight against the roles f women in civilization is very awing. He is able to distinguish the chains brought to by civilization to not only men but to women as well. He is establishing the idea that civilization is just a method to show off riches, not to show off what they really believe in... which makes it a toxic environment

Gandhi, though this text, is pointing out how civilization (or at least the British civilization) is a toxic concept. He illustrates the idea of civilization as a boundary that people follow that restrains them. Those in a civilization are bound to follow the rules because they have to think it's right (even if they don't truly believe it is)

Stalin seems to be noticing the things that most people tend to ignore. He states that the entire work load that creates imperialism is done by the oppressed crowd. These people are the ones doing what has to be done in order to have imperialism a success. However, they are still the ones forgotten. Stalin's observation makes him look very intelligent and aware of the things happening.

Adding on to what Jana said, it seems as if though his question circles around the idea of what we can do for the nationalism of the "uncivilized". Stalin brings to question what the oppressed people can do and why they are still to be in those conditions even if they are dependent. However, it is a little ironic that he tends to defend the oppressed even when he was an oppressor.

This made me think of all the heavily embedded slogans in my head. "Make America Great Again", "Yes we can", "I want you for U.S. Army", "Kars for Kids" Its true that the slogan must be popular. Even without any information about what the campaign or propaganda is about, its human nature to be for something when we remember it. Therefore slogans and catchy names will always have importance, Trump will always be known for his Phrase as will Obama, Uncle Sam, and any commercials!. It also just adds to the idea that propaganda isn't meant to be informative but just eye catchy and easily liked...

Just from the start it clearly shows who propaganda is meant for and why it never targets the "intellectual". Propaganda is not meant to inform people of things but more of a persuasive tactic portraying only one side. Here, propaganda was used to target a large mass however not the intellectual ones but the ones that will most likely be influenced by such portrayal of things.

This article focuses on the giving of powers over those who lost. In this section, it portrays the winners (like England) as the "good guys" who are taking over the land as a kindness or favor for those who lost. I get this tone when it says "who are willing to accept it" as if the league of Nations didn't want to take over in the first place but they have a duty to for the better.

Adding on to what YayLee said, the very beginning demonstrates the change of reasoning for expansion. First it was believed it was their destiny to expand and now with the new ideas of enlightenment, the French defended their want to expansion with mercantilism. This shift of using a religious approach to a more modern approach benefitted the French because it gave them a better excuse and defense for growing out. They insisted that it would help with wealth increase and provide a vast production of resources.

He started talking about the trees being King again, but then he turns to a darker aspect of it. He described the nature around him as "no joy" and "gloomy". It comes to show the change drastically of how he sees nature (a modern man) versus how the natives see it (beautiful and lively). This provides a better understanding of the differences between the two people, not just in lifestyle but in habitat.