Identify and elaborate on one or two lessons you have learned from our study of United States history that affect you today in your daily life and/or work. Provide advice to the next group of students who will be taking this course. How has this course affected you today in your daily life and/or work? What should incoming students be aware of regarding this class? What strategies did you use that they may find useful? What advice can you provide to help them earn an A?
Historical documents represent the primary source material for historians. The collection and analysis of primary sources is central to historical research. The goal of this assignment is to consider what kinds of contemporary sources
What is meant by the ‘second industrial revolution’? What impacts did it have on the economy and society.
Write an essay (with introduction and conclusion) on the suggested topic. Your introduction should include the thesis statement - main idea of the paper (here is more detailed explanation - https://essayshark.com/blog/how-to-write-a-thesis-statement-to-make-it-clear/). Don't include any new information in the conclusion. It should restate the thesis statement of the paper. Support your ideas with relevant arguments and examples (in-text citations). List 2-3 sources in the references. Make sure you stick to a required formatting style. Get benefits of these sources citationmachine.net and easybib.com. MLA format - https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html
what is the difference between Federalists and Anti-Federalists? How did this get played out in the early formation of the American government? Which side would you take in some of these debates? Make sure that your answer is about more than just the Federalist vs. Anti - Federalist debate.
“Daughters of Uranium is a title redolent of both archaic chemical science and of generations born into an uncertain future. Citing the radioactive decay chain in Uranium 235, widely known for its use in the first atomic bomb, the successive isotopes in Uranium’s family tree are referred to as ‘daughters.’” (https://www.saag.ca/art/exhibitions/0738-mary-kavanagh-%7C-daughters-of-uranium- and Daughters of Uranium, hand-out at the SAAG) At the SAAG, Trinier pointed out the Trinity Historical Photographs, 1945-1946, installed in the central concourse to the left of the entrance to the exhibition, encountered by the viewer before or after seeing the exhibition in the main gallery space as a kind of parentheses. As archival images, they are set apart here from the rest of the exhibition. She later directed attention to the four archival photographs within the exhibition space: documents of the actual event – the first atomic bomb detonation, Project Trinity test, at White Sands Missile Range on July 16, 1945. These four photographs, she suggested, approach a time-lapse record of this event. For the artist, inclusion of the metadata with all the archival photographs was important. Throughout the gallery tour, Trinier pointed to aspects of exhibition design, demonstrating how aspects of design – installation and placement of artworks, archival documents, and objects in the gallery, in relation to one another; as well as the design of display fixtures – are an essential means of conveying meanings of the exhibition, with an impact on the viewer’s experience. The artist, she noted, designed the two covered plinths, used to display samples of Trinitite; and rubble from Hiroshima Castle, near the epicenter of the bomb, dropped on the Japanese city on August 6, 1945, the first deployment of a nuclear bomb. The diptych’ form of this work, Trinitie, connects the Trinity test to the bombing. For Rosa the Beautiful, Kavanagh also designed the welded metal table for the cast uranium glass legs and collaborated with another artist on deign of the panel of black lights in the ceiling. The installation in the darkened space was the artist’s design, with cast legs, lights, table and darkened gallery all, according to Trinier, to be seen and experienced as part of the work. Consideration was given to the display of items of popular atomic culture from the period, spectacularly, uranium glassware, together with plant material from White Sands Desert and soil from the home of American artist, Georgia O’Keefe at Ghost Ranch, New Mexico, and an array of artifacts, making up Daughters of Uranium: material study. How the viewer engages with these objects, representing the culture of radiation in popular culture, with the ‘scorpion light’ (black light) to see the uranium glass and other materials fluoresce, and the watercolour sequence, Tumour Timeline above, has been meticulously planned, put together to relate an interpretation of the work, as Trinier revealed. Such close attention to display apparatus and installation is an essential aspect of this exhibition. Trinier also spoke more generally about how galleries make loan requests to other institutions to borrow works from their collections for exhibitions. She went on to describe Kavanagh’s request to the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa for the loan of the pig suit, owned by the museum.. Met with refusal, the artist had a replica of the artifact in the museum’s collection made for the present exhibition. Trinier speculated on the reasons behind the Canadian War Museum’s refusal to lend the pig suit, suggesting that, as a military museum, dedicated to histories of war, the decision might have been prompted by concerns that, in the context of a contemporary art exhibition, critique of military programmes might be asserted. In discussion at the SAAG, this raised the issue of how different institutional contexts have the capacity to affect the meaning of works and artifacts; the pig suit could be understood in one way in the historical context of a military museum and in an altogether different way as part of an art exhibition, presented in a contemporary art gallery. Trinier sees the loan request made to the museum by the artist as a political act. The process of asking for the loan was part of Kavanagh’s concept, with the act of making the request and being denied being as much a part of the artwork as having the replica made. In the context of discussing the archival photographs here, Trinier pointed to how history can be made part of an exhibition. And, history, she said, is up for debate. Historical archives are considered by artists. There are always questions about how and why (and by whom) archives are made; as a system made by people, archives are open to question. She encouraged a critical response to history and to its representation and interpretation in this exhibition. Daughters of Uranium is the outcome of extensive and ongoing research, carried out by the artist over a number of years, in archives, through interviews and through contacts with a network of individuals involved in research into atomic history and culture and in the military. (She returns to White Sands this year in April.) You might reflect on this kind of historical and original research as part of an artistic process. For Kavanagh, the centre of the exhibition rests with Georgia O’Keefe’s letter of August 7, 1945 to Alfred Stieglitz, The New York Times from August 7, 1945 and Trinitite – with the work’s extended label: [Rubble at Hiroshima Castle gathered within one kilometer of atom bomb epicenter, 2007]. Describe the intersections of these three, around which all the other components of the exhibition might be seen to revolve. Extended labels accompany each component of this exhibition: artworks, including series of watercolours and drawings and the installation work, archival documentation, artifacts, material residue, and video. Trinity, the multi-channel video projection, using original and archival film footage in a diptych format, reflects on atomic landscape and present-day atomic tourism. Kavanagh’s project encompasses a historical era, the birth of the atomic age at mid-century, and the present time. You might describe the evidentiary aspect of materials and artifacts here. At the same time as her project considers political, military, environmental, ecological and sociocultural aspects of atomic history and culture, she is concerned with individual experience and with impacts on the body, traces left by the of the nuclear age. This is perhaps most immediately felt in the series of drawings, Breath Drawings: Infinity Series. You might describe the making of these drawings (see video on artist’s website). ‘Kavanagh often interrogates the residues and stains of history. In a series of graphite drawings, the artist explores the radical transformation wrought by the settling of radioactive and other toxic particulate in the body. Her forensic approach has also resulted in an extensive collection of artifacts and ephemera gathered from historic and active nuclear sites. In one piece, cast uranium glass references the body in a state of transmutation, while the inclusion of lead bricks points to notions of containment and exposure.’ ***This is how it must be written please. The aim is to arrive at an informed critical assessment of the exhibition, drawing on relevant sources and on your own responses. (In this context, and in the context of critiquing art more broadly, the term critical is not used in a negative sense.) Begin by indicating what, where and when: the exhibition title, the gallery where it is showing, and the exhibition dates. At this point, you might give a brief overall desсrіption of the exhibition, providing the reader with a sense of what they will see when they visit the gallery. A solo exhibition, a group exhibition; paintings, installation art, sculpture, photo-based work…. Early in your review, outline the central themes of the exhibition, taking note of any curatorial statements available to gallery visitors. To do this effectively, you might refer to relevant online information about the exhibition on the gallery’s website and to the introductory text panel in the exhibition, as well as any other text panels, hand-outs or other didactic information available in the gallery. Define the intentions of the exhibition, as articulated by the curator and/or artist. Indicate the exhibition’s themes. In establishing the curatorial premise here, you may want to quote directly from the introductory text, or paraphrase (in your own words) a curatorial statement, providing some context for your quotation or paraphrased passage. To make clear the curatorial premise, themes and aims of the exhibition, and to assess the exhibition effectively, you will need to understand the concerns of the artist, as embodied in the works shown. Knowledge of the artist’s practice is therefore essential. A comprehensive understanding of the artist’s work will enable you to contextualize the artworks selected for the present exhibition in terms of the wider practice of that artist. Draw upon the artist’s lecture and relevant online sources, importantly, the artist’s website, following links to published writings and other media coverage about their work. Consider the exhibition in light of the stated curatorial aims. Develop discussion of the exhibition systematically, keeping in view the curatorial aims and ideas that you have outlined. To do this, you will have to provide objective desсrіption of aspects of the exhibition and of artworks. Observant desсrіption is essential to conveying to the reader a sense of the exhibition and of the work shown, and to substantiate your critical commentary. Sensitive and focused desсrіption of selected works should form the basis of your critique. Highlighting specific works or series will enable you to demonstrate points that you make throughout your review. Base your critical views on observation, desсrіption and reference to sources, as well as reflection on your experience, avoiding unsupported assertions. You may choose to write in the first person, if you feel that this is effective. Work towards developing an assessment of the exhibition, in terms of its stated theme(s) and aims. Consider the success of the exhibition in communicating the underlying curatorial ideas. How are these ideas addressed and embodied in the artworks, and furthered (or frustrated) by the installation of the artworks in the space of the gallery? Are there works that undermine or detract from the central themes of the exhibition? Are there aspects of the exhibition that, in your experience, go beyond the stated curatorial aims? Does the curatorial framing of the artwork limit the experience? Open any avenues of discussion that you feel are relevant. Consider relationships between works. Desсrіptive and critical (again, not in a negative sense) commentary will enable you to develop your own informed critical assessment of the exhibition. Draw into your discussion the views of others and relate these to your own ideas. Reflecting on your knowledge of curatorial aims and of the artist’s practice, and your experience of the exhibition and artworks, offer insights into the exhibition for your reader. Conclude with an informed assessment that emerges coherently out of all that you have said. In approaching an exhibition and your review, consider all facets of the exhibition. Where pertinent, observe the installation of artworks in the space of the gallery. Be attentive to the position of individual artworks in the space and relative to other artworks, and consider how the installation affects our experience in the gallery? Does the arrangement and sequencing of works – to some extent, dependent on the interior architecture of the gallery – direct our movements and influence our responses? Does the installation of the exhibition enhance our experience and support the curatorial ideas behind the exhibition? Consider, as well, what is available to the visitor in the gallery, beyond the artworks. Has the gallery provided materials, intended to enhance our understanding of the exhibition and encounter with the artworks, that deserve mention in your review? Is there an exhibition catalogue? Are these effective in informing and enhancing experience? To be successful, your review must be concise, effectively summarizing significant aspects of the exhibition: curatorial aims, which will inform the basis of your assessment; artworks shown; and any factors of the exhibition design and installation in the gallery that have an impact on your experience and understanding of the exhibition. Your review should be informed by the wide scope of your knowledge of the artist’s work, as well as your experience of the exhibition. Visit the gallery on more than one occasion and reflect thoughtfully on your responses to the artworks and the exhibition. Introduce into your review perspectives of the artist, curator and other critics or commentators, where pertinent. Remember to cite all sources that you draw upon (see course outline). [You may not readily find ways of referencing text panels or lectures in standard forms of citation. Just be sure to make clear all sources e.g. Robin Peck, in his Art NOW lecture, said… or …(Robin Peck, Art NOW, March 1, 2019); similarly, The introductory text panel in the gallery says that… or … (Statement by the artist on text panel in the gallery).] A separate bibliography is demanded for the reviews. Your review should give evidence of your visit to the gallery, embodying your experience of the exhibition and reflecting a significant level of engagement. Reflect closely on your encounter with curatorial ideas and with artworks. At the same time, in order to gain your reader’s confidence as well as to broaden your review beyond the realm of opinion, incorporate the views of others: artist, curator, critics. Be sure to acknowledge fully ideas that you derive from various sources and integrate them effectively into a discussion that you create. Neither rely overly on sources nor be overly subjective. Aim to arrive at an independent assessment of the exhibition that does not just restate existing views that you have read.
Choose 1 of the following topics for your Comparative Essay: 1. Age of the earth (radioisotope dating vs. alternative methods) 2. Origin of coal (swamp forests vs. marine deposition) 3. Dating the rock layers seen in the Grand Canyon (old earth vs. young earth) 4. The fossil record (evidence of: long periods of time vs. short periods of time) 5. Mass extinctions in the fossil record (old-earth vs. young-earth) Content and Outline Use the following outline when writing your paper. Each point on the outline below must be a separate section (with the section heading, as indicated) within your paper. I. Introduction • Indicate which topic you chose from the list above. • Indicate the purpose of your paper (i.e., to compare old-earth and young-earth viewpoints on your chosen topic). II. Old-Earth Secular View • What is the old-earth secular viewpoint and the evidence supporting that viewpoint on your chosen topic? Are there assumptions that are part of this viewpoint? o Do not discuss the old-earth creationist viewpoint on your chosen topic. For a desсrіption of old-earth creationism, go to http://www.icr.org/article/4535/. III. Young-Earth View • What is the young-earth viewpoint and the evidence for that viewpoint on your chosen topic? Are there assumptions that are part of this viewpoint? IV. Comparison of the Viewpoints • Comparison is articulating similarities between the 2 viewpoints. What are the similarities (if any) in time, sequence, and processes involved? • Be sure to provide at least 2 similarities (comparisons) between the viewpoints. V. Contrast of the Viewpoints • Contrast is articulating differences between the 2 viewpoints. What are the differences (if any) in time, sequence, and processes involved? • Be sure to provide at least 2 differences (contrasts) between the viewpoints. VI. Conclusion • Provide a summary statement for your paper. • Be sure to restate your purpose. • Do not introduce new material in your conclusion. Avoid using first person throughout the paper. Use of “I” or “we” should be avoided. Length This paper must be 1,000–1,500 words. Do not exceed this word limit. The title page and reference page do not count toward this word total. Format You must use current APA formatting. Papers must be double-spaced with 1-inch margins. Font is to be 12-point Times New Roman. Include a cover or title page with: Ø paper title Ø your name Ø instructor’s name Ø course number, section number and course name (i.e., PHSC 210 B21, Elements of Earth Science) Ø date There is no need to include an abstract in your paper. Sources Your Comparative Essay must include at least 4 scholarly sources in addition the course textbook and the Bible. Of these required sources, 2 must be from an old-earth perspective and 2 from a young-earth perspective. Acceptable sources include journal articles, manusсrіpts, scholarly textbooks, and/or internet sites from .edu or .gov sources. Avoid internet sites from .com, .net, .org, etc. as the information contained therein is not often peer reviewed. There are exceptions to this rule (e.g., the Institute for Creation Research site is a .org site, but it has been judged a reputable site by those in the young-earth community. Answers in Genesis is also acceptable.). In particular, avoid Wikipedia. Study Bibles are also not appropriate for this assignment. Citation Be sure to cite your sources in the body of your paper using current APA formatting. Examples of current APA formatting rules can be found here. Also, a presentation about current APA formatting is provided in Module/Week 6.
The main questions that you will be summarizing are: 1. Hardly, anybody, and certainly not the philosophes, dreamed of revolution, or have even understood the idea. 2. Is it true that the philosophes did not dream of revolution? 3. What about the people who were elected to the Estates General? 4. What about the people who composed the different cashiers de doleance
you will write an analytical/research paper on a historical event (on a battle or campaign that happened in the Pacific in WWII). You will analyze a historical event from the perspective of the operational art & design concepts and terms from chapter IV, JP 5-0, Joint Planning and/or other appropriate joint doctrinal publications. You can analyze the entire campaign/operation, a single battle, or a group of battles from the campaign/operation
View the list of American Essayists. Select an essayist who wrote after the Civil War (note, the list includes some pre-Civil War essayists. Do not select a pre-Civil War essayist). Search the internet for an essay by your selected author and read it. Compose a thesis that has a persuasive, debatable claim about the significance of the message or theme in the essay or the success/effectiveness of the essay as a whole. Summarize the essay in your intro paragraph, end the paragraph with your thesis, and be sure to include your three points of evidence in your thesis statement. Cite the essay as you would any article on the internet as you examine your points of evidence. Your essays should be in MLA Style and approximately 1500-2000 words, not including the Work(s) Cited page. Meeting the minimum word requirement makes you eligible for a C grade. Meeting the maximum word requirements makes you eligible for an A grade. As with most academic writing, this essay should be written in third person. Please avoid both first person (I, we, our, etc.) and second person (you, your). In the upper left-hand corner of the paper, place your name, the professor’s name, the course name, and the due date for the assignment on consecutive lines. Double space your information from your name onward, and don′t forget a title. All papers should be in Times New Roman font with 12-point type with one-inch margins all the way around your paper. All paragraph indentations should be indented five spaces (use the tab key) from the left margin. All work is to be left justified. When quoting lines in literature, please research the proper way to cite short stories, plays, or poems. Should you choose to use outside references for prompt one or two, these must be scholarly, peer-reviewed sources obtained via the APUS library (select Advanced Search and check the Peer Reviewed box). Reliable open web sources may be used for prompt three. Be careful that you don’t create a ″cut and paste″ paper of information from your various sources. Your ideas are to be new and freshly constructed. Also, take great care not to plagiarize.
Dimensions of the Essay Your essay should conform to the following technical details: -it should be 5-6 pages (between 1250-1500 words), typed, double-spaced, 12 pt. font, 1″ margins. In addition to the five-six pages of text, students should provide a cover/title page (that includes a title for the essay, student’s name, the course title, and date submitted—student’s essay should begin on the following page, numbered, 1). -student’s essay should also be well organized, containing an introductory paragraph, a body, and a conclusion. -finally, student’s essay should be based overwhelmingly on the document collection provided by the professor and on the course textbook. Students may cite from another source/s (if you do, however, do so VERY sparingly, because students’ grade on the assignment will depend on command of the document set and on command of the course textbook). Be The Historian Consider the documents in this packet as a kind of puzzle, a kind of problem you are attempting to solve. In the broadest sense, you should examine and analyze the pieces of the puzzle, thoroughly and carefully, until you become so familiar with them that you can write a history of the Homestead Strike, just as an historian would. That is, use evidence (from the documents and the textbook) to understand the event for yourself and then create what you think is the best explanation of it for readers. To do that, your history of the Homestead Strike should explain WHERE the event took place, WHEN it occurred, WHAT happened there, WHO the important figures were, and most important, WHY it happened. In short, be the historian of the Homestead Lockout and Strike of 1892. Historical Context It isn’t possible to explain the full significance and importance of the Homestead Strike by focusing exclusively on the events of it. Every historical event, anywhere, anytime, is just one part of a larger environment of events, ideas, values, beliefs, conditions, laws, historical forces (etc., etc., etc). Historians call this larger environment, HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Your history of the Homestead Strike should explain how it emerged out of, and was also part of, the larger environment of the late 19th century. While you study the documents, then, you should also attempt to understand the broader historical context in which they were created. One way to do that is to consider why the events of the Homestead Strike mattered to people at that time. Audience While thinking about and composing your essay, you should write as if you were writing for someone who is smart but doesn’t necessarily know anything about history, and more important, doesn’t know anything about the Homestead Strike. So, again, be the historian, and teach them the history of this event.
This website is owned and operated by PFS Limited.
Company Registration office is at:
2875 NE 194st St 404, Miami, FL 33180
Edudorm.com provides writing and research services for limited use only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references and in accordance with Terms & Conditions
