Portfolio

Assignments Based on Issues

Focus Question 1- Issue 1
Team Resistance- Issue 2
Rejection of Liberalism-Issue 3
Representation VS Authority- Issue 4
Position Paper- Issue 4

Vocab

Progressivism - is about solving problems, and it's the antithesis of elitism and concentrated power. That means it's about civic participation. It's not so much an ideology as an approach to politics. Theodore Roosevelt was an example if someone who followed these beliefs.
Brinksmanship- Allows people to put people into dangerous situations in order to get the results you want.
Command Economies- in this economy supply and prices are determined by the government instead of the market. This is another name for a centrally planned economy the best example of this is the Soviet Union of Russia.
McCarthyism- Is when you use fear and harassment to pressure people into following your political beliefs.

Graphic Organizer's

Issue 1

Individualism	Similarities	Collectivism
Rule of law	Rule of Law –vs.- Adherence to collective norms	Economic equality
Individual rights and freedoms	Private-vs.- Public Property	Co-operation
Private Property	Collective-vs.-self-Interest	Public Property
Economic Freedom	Competition-vs.-co-operation	Collective Interest
Self-interest		Collective Responsibility
Competition		Adherence to collective norms

Issue 2/3

Philosophers	Idea’s	How they relate and Promote Classical Liberalism
Adam Smith	-Individuals work for their own self interest in a free market system -Free market would lead to a stronger economy and would therefore benefit most people in society -Laissez-faire capitalism, the economic system associated with classical liberalism	Free Market Economy Self Interest Economic Freedom
Milton Freidman	-Idea’s based on Adam Smith’s -Freedom of people to make their own decisions so long as they do not prevent anybody else from doing the something constant liberalism	Self Interest Economic Freedom Individual Rights and Freedoms
John Keynes	-Market system driven by supply and demand -No government interference -Individuals should be responsible for their own finical situation

Ideologies	Similarities	Differences
Luddism	-Self interests, the government was not making any of the decisions -Rights and freedoms- they wanted the right to work. They were fighting because they lost their jobs to machines and they were trying to get their jobs back by destroying the machines.	-they were having a violent revolution -they were destroying the private property
Chartism	-Individual rights and freedoms, they were wanting the right to vote	-They were going against economic equality by wanting everything to be equal for everyone no matter how hard another man worked
Utopian Socialist	-Individual rights, individuals could realize their potential if they were free to pursue their own inclinations.	-They didn’t believe in self interest and economic freedom there ideologies were more socialist
Marxism	-Competition, between the proletariat and bourgeoisie  -Economic Freedom through a free market economy	-Did not believe in private property -Believed the society would eventually become socialist
Classical Conservatism	-Economic Freedom, if people choose to work hard they benefited themselves	-Did not believe in self interest -But society held responsible for the well being of other which is a collective responsibility
Welfare Capitalism	-Self interest -Economic equality, government limited working hours and had a minimum wages, and a safety net with features like pensions and medical insurance	-promoted collective interest
Welfare State	-Economic equality, free market economy (supply and demand)	-Government had involvement in the economy -People in society did not work themselves the worked for the benefit of each other -everyone had equal opportunities

Issue 4

Representative Democracy	VS	Authoritarian Government
Similarities	Liberal Ideologies Rejected	Differences
Representative democracy and authoritarian government both use propaganda to get you to vote for their parties. Representative democracy use subtle commercial while authoritarian governments use a more of a brainwashing technique.	Economic freedom is rejected	Authoritarian governments use terror on behalf of the government to get there parties to power while representative democracy uses a fair vote to get there parties to power.
	Rule of law is rejected	Authoritarian governments can be at term as long as they like while representative democracy has set terms that one person can be at power for.

Quizzes

 On the pracitce diploma quizzes i received a 64 and a 77. On the first quiz i struggled with understanding the difference between clasasical and modern liberlism. I got help from you and went backed into my notes and figured out the differences in the ideologies between the two liberlisms. When the next quiz came along i had a better understanding and it showed in the next quiz and my mark improved. The only problem I have now is anaylizing the sources that will be presented on the social diploma. I will prepare for the diploma by mostly focusing on source analyisis question because that is where im strugging the most. I will use my old quizzes to help me becasue i went back and wrote notes and the correct answer beside all the questions I struggled with on those quizzez.

Diploma Writing

Source Comparisson 1
Source Comparisson 2
 On the first diploma source in October I received an 87 and on the last one we just wrote I got a 57. I should have improved throughout the year but I did just the opposite. When I looked back and compared the two assignments I could see the understanding of the sources in both but in the first one I could take my understanding and expand it. In my last source assignment I did not put the effort and my knowledge into this assignment and that was reflected in my mark. To improve on the diploma I will have to understand all the ideologies we have studied and really find some evidence that connects and that it connects properly for what I am trying to say and connect to the sources presented.

Position Paper
Position Paper 2

My first position paper I wrote I had trouble understanding the source. The evidence I was using to support my idea was not supported correctly making my position confusing. The paper in a whole was kind of all over the map and did not make as much sense when I look at it now compared to when I wrote it. My second position paper I took more time understanding the source and I believe I used evidence to support it more effectively. I feel like I did a much better job the second time and I believe I will be more prepared and be able to analyze the sources on the diploma much better than before.  

Showcases

Germany and Russia
Team-Aboriginal Experience
Bibliography

Bibliography

Visual Oral Prestination

Korean War Prestination

Position Paper #2

Position Paper #2

By: Amber Copp

           

Would you suspend your rights and freedoms in order to guarantee the preservation of democracy? A democracy is a state of society where you embrace the equality of rights and freedoms. It’s a government made by the people for the people. So would you give up an amount of your rights and freedoms to better to rights and freedoms for all? The author of the source is a Liberal but suppressing human rights goes against liberal principles. As a young adult in today’s society I would embrace giving up some of my rights in an act of security or desperation but only to a certain point. I would not give up my rights and freedoms if I knew it would harm other people’s rights/freedoms like the patriot act did. The patriot benefited people like me who are white Canadians but it did not protect people like Muslim Americans.  I would give up some of my rights and freedoms if I knew my country was going into economic crisis like what is happening in the USA. If giving up some of my rights/freedoms meant that employment rate would increase I would do it. But there is a down fall to giving up some of your rights/freedoms we saw this with Hitler’s rise to power. He promised the people many things and the people were so desperate at the time they listened and Hitler drove Germany into complete economic crisis. That is one example of it not working out but who says if it’s executed properly why it wouldn’t work.

The patriot act was put in place to prevent terrorism after the 9/11 attack on the United States.  In theory the patriot act would suppress terrorism before it got out of hand and killed many innocent civilians.  People gave up some of their rights and freedoms in order to feel secure but what actually happened was many people lost much of their rights and many innocent people were harmed by the patriot act. The government tapped into phone conversation, personal computers, and medical records, searched people’s homes without even evidence that these people were committing or associated with terrorism acts. Many of these individuals were of Muslim ethnicity. By giving up some of your rights and freedoms to the government some people lost more than others which is unfair and juvenile, so in this case giving up some of your rights and freedoms didn’t go well if you were a part of the wrong religious or racial group.

If you economy was going through a crisis then giving of some of your control to the government wouldn’t be so bad. In the United States today their dollar is low on the world market making it harder for them to purchase what their country needs. Their unemployment rate is extremely high making it harder for the economy to buy their necessities. Since there dollar is low things are more expensive for them to purchase and the unemployment rate is high making the people have less money to spend. This will soon result into an economic crash and for another recession to hit. In this case many people would not want to experience another great depression like what happened in the thirties, so giving up some of your rights and freedoms so the government can stabilize the economy and promote a stronger democracy would benefit the entire country. This would only work if the person you’re giving up your rights and freedoms for was responsible.

Hitler got his rise to power when Germanys economy was in much worse shape then the United States is in today. The People of Germany were quite desperate. Hitler came in and promised economic stability. Hitler gave people jobs, 6 million Germans were unemployed in 1932 by 1936 there were less than 1 million. Hitler got people working on building and roads, Hitler also took this opportunity to build a larger military force. Life was looking up for the Germans but by the time they thought they could get their individual rights and freedoms back Hitler already took them all away by discriminating against the Jewish religion. Hitler took his large army that he called the Nazi’s and murdered many Jews resulting in the Holocaust. In this particular case giving up some rights and freedoms resulted in a negative mass murder of one particular group and Germany never saw a democracy.

Democracy can be a good thing when we are looking at a place like Canada, but getting to a stable democracy can he hard like what we saw in German. Giving up rights and freedoms can be a huge decision because it doesn’t take much to lose all of them. For Muslim Americans most of them lost many of their rights and freedoms with the patriot act. Jews in German in the 1940’s lost all their rights and freedoms. So the real question is how much would you give up in order to see democracy? That all depends on your economy and the faith you have on your political and economic leaders. It did not work in German when Hitler was in power but in the United States they already have a democracy and could safely give up some right in order to stabilize their economy. In order to have a liberal democracy you would have to give up some of your liberal principle like individual rights and freedoms.