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.

Focus Question 1

Perspectives on Ideology

Written Response Focus Question 1

By Amber Copp

Collectivism describes an outlook or philosophy that stresses the interactivity between people. It is often considered the opposite of individualism, though both individualism and collectivism can be important within a single outlook. In a collective philosophy the group or society is seen as having precedence over the individual. Collectivism stresses interdepence and importance of collective over the individual. Individualism essentially is when a person endures individualism, they believe that the person’s rights are far more important than the rights of any collective group (government or society) provided those rights are not exercised in a way that harms others. In the two sources we were given source one displays collectivism and source two displays individualism. As you look further into the two sources you can see that there are similarities between the two.

In source one we hear about how the Inuit tribe has changed over time. From what Mary Anulik Kutsiq has said I believe that the Inuit tribe has gone from collectivism to individualism over time. Collectivism considers the well being of a community at the expense of an individual. The Intuits displayed that at earlier times.  In earlier times the Intuits displayed Economic equality when people with more food or tea divided it up equally with the community/households. They showed co-operation because even if they didn’t have much to share everyone in the community cooperated and shared what they could to make their community work together for the common good for all. They even showed common interest when everyone in the community had the same goal which was to make sure everyone had a little bit to eat so they all could survive. They have collective responsibility, everyone in the community had the same responsibility to help and share with their neighbors and everyone else in their community.  Everyone had the same values and collective norms as one another. They were a collectivist community but as their community became larger and the economy began to change so did their values.  Mary described them as self-centered and involved with their own problems. Everyone went their own ways. The community was no longer the same they were becoming individualist.

In bears source two we see a bear standing on the streets and a guy walks by and says “In my day, worked for their honey.” This statement is an attack on individualist. The cartoon shows economic freedom by implying that if you don’t want to work you don’t have to. You don’t have any but yourself to support. The bear is showing self interest by the fact that he is not thinking for the benefit of his community he is thinking for the benefits for himself. We can see competition displayed because the bear is trying to take away honey from others for himself.  The bear seems to be quite capable of working for his honey but he chooses to beg for it instead and there is no law stopping him from that because more and more societies are becoming more individualist.

The two cartoons are similar because they are both suggesting that as communities become larger and larger and as the years go buy people are becoming more self concerned, they are displaying more individualism which is where classical liberalism came from. The two cartoons are similar to classical liberalism by self interest and economic freedom. In both sources you are free to be concerned only of yourself. You can also see that there are differences between the two sources and there are places were classical liberalism is not displayed and that is when you can see the collective responsibility and economic equality in source one and the colletive interest. In source two there was a hint of completion displayed and none of these are connected to classical liberalism.

There is a little classical liberalism in both collectivism and individualism which make classical liberalism a good balance between the two. We saw that in both sources that most communities are slowly growing into individualist and I don’t believe that this is a good idea because the last thing a community or society needs is lots of self absorbed society members. Communities will not run as smoothly as they did in earlier times.

Bibliography

Bibliography

(n.d.). Retrieved from English Grammer and Style Theme Page : http://www.cln.org/themes/eng_grammar.html
Astral. (2010). Retrieved from Historia : http://www.historiatv.com/
BBC. (n.d.). Retrieved from BBC World News : http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/default.aspx
CBC 2010. (2010). Retrieved from CBC News : http://www.cbc.ca/news/
CIA. (2009). Retrieved from CIA World Factbook : https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/site-policies/index.html#copy
CW Media. (2009). Retrieved from Global Calgary : http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/
Drexel University. (2009). Retrieved from Literary Criticism: http://www.ipl.org/div/litcrit/
Gage Learning. (202). Imprints . In L. F. Kathey Evans, Imprints (p. 525). Toronto: Gage Learning Corporation .
Government Of Alberta . (2008-2010). Retrieved from LearnAlberta: http://www.learnalberta.ca/
Government Of Canada . (2010, 03 16). Retrieved from Statistics Canada : http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/edu02_0000-eng.htm
Gray, T. A. (1995-2009). Retrieved from Mr.William Shakespeare : http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/
ICRA. (2004). Retrieved from Guide To Grammer And Writing : http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
Martin, P. (n.d.). Retrieved from World History : http://worldhistory.pppst.com/
Newsdesk.org. Powered by Wordpress. (n.d.). Retrieved from Newsdesk.org: http://newsdesk.org/
Open School BC. (2003). Retrieved from Community Learning Network : http://www.cln.org/home.html
Oxford. (2009). Persectives On Ideology. In J. Fielding, Persectives On Ideology (p. 538). New York: Ovford University Press Canada.
Univeristy Of Manitoba. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Canadian Literature Archive: http://www.umanitoba.ca/canlit/
Wolfcreek. (n.d.). Retrieved from Humanities Department : http://elchs.wolfcreek.ab.ca/lcsweb/Staff/skabachia/S007B8822-02649C5F

Response To Sources

Source 1
In source 1 someone from the freedom and welfare state are comparing modern liberalism and an authoritarian government.  The person is saying that if you use fear and insecurity the people will never be thought as individuals and they will never be free. In an authoritarian style government they use fear to get control of the people but what the freedom and welfare state was trying to say is that if people are living in fear because of they have a different race, creed or color that is not excepted by the government, they are not free, and this will lead to people being hungry and homeless. The freedom and welfare state said “free to develop their individual capacities, to receive just awards for their talents, and to engage in the pursuit of happiness”.  This statement reflects the liberal principles of self-interest and economic freedom, which were developed as classical liberalism principles.  It also that individuals can do all of these things without factors of fear and insecurity that would normally present themselves in pursuing self-interest.

Source 2

Source 2 talks about the downfall of socialism in their idea of “from those who have, to those who have need”.  The source says “seizing property from the Haves and distributing it to the Have-nots” and “taxing producers and subsidizing consumers” this statement is the basis of socialism.  The entire ideology is built upon the belief of everyone receiving an equal share, regardless of who they are, in a perfect society.  However, the conclusion of Source II projects that socialism is guaranteed to fail and surround the world with hunger and poverty. The principles of liberalism in this source are economic and individual rights and freedoms.

Source 3

Source 3 is responding to classical liberalism.  The elderly man looking at the paper with a headline reading, “Good Times: Even the Poor Gain” represents the idea that not everyone should benefit from an economic boom, but those who work hard should reap the rewards. Principles of classical liberalism shown in the carton are self-interest, competition, and economic freedom.

Compare

Even though the sources discuss different ideologies they all have the common discussion about whether individuals should seek the benefits or if everyone should be treated equally. In source 2 they want individual to work for their resources they don’t believe that people should just be handed things. Same with source 3 they believe if you worked for it that you should seek the benefits rather they share the benefits with everyone.