Transcript The Mongol Empire

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING FILM RESPONSE PAPER
(1) The point of any good movie is not the action, but the message. Hence, do not just
summarize the film. If there is no analysis involved, then you have not responded, only
regurgitated. If the movie is based on true events, you should evaluate the level of
analogy and either justify or criticize any differences the movie exhibits with respect to
the original story it is based on.
(II) Do not try to be a film critic. Do not worry about the actors’ performances (except
insofar as they might be relevant in evaluating the film’s success in making its point) or
the subtleties of direction and editing. Your target is a particular theme, not filmmaking.
(III) Your first paragraph should be an introduction to your topic—that is, the issue or
issues on which you are going to focus. It should be a brief paragraph—maybe four or
five sentences. Be sure to say which aspect of the movie, specifically, will be discussed
in the paper. If you want to emphasize and discuss issues that are secondary in the
movie, still try to mention the movie’s central theme or themes.
(IV) The main body of your essay should be the exploration of your theme or themes,
using characters, scenes, symbols, and situations in the movie to show how the movie
supports or contradicts your understanding of a particular topic. It should be composed
of two-three distinct paragraphs – each of them discussing your impressions and
thoughts as related to the film in question.
(V) Pay close attention to basics like grammar and punctuation. Proofread your essay.
(VI) Your conclusion should contain a short summary of all points comprised in your
argumentation.
Film response paper sample
Battle of Neretva is a 1969 a Yugoslav partisan film. The film was
directed by Veljko Bulajić and depicts a massive Axis offensive against the
Yugoslav Partisans in 1943. The offensive was also known as the “Fourth
Enemy Offensive” and occurred in the area of the Neretva-River in BosniaHerzegovina (I/146-147).
The film is based on the true events of World War II although it conveys
the impression that the Partisans as well as their enemies were ideologically
motivated. In my opinion, however, the bulk of the population in wartime
Yugoslavia held no rigid political loyalties. Instead, they were forced to survive
as best they could and their allegiances shifted according to the situation. For
example, the Chetniks, who are portrayed as the inveterate enemies of the
Partisans, were not a single unified force, but initially fought alongside the
Partisans against the Germans and then joined the Germans against the
Partisans (I/45-51).
Bosnia-Herzegovina especially represented a contentious mix of political
ideologies, ethnicities, and religious beliefs – including nationalism and
communism, and Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Muslim denominations –
and consequently, the war there was particularly cruel (II/13-18). The film
crafts a fascinating narrative of rival radical ideologies, particularly between
the multinational vision of the Communist Partisans versus the xenophobic
nationalism of the Serbian Chetniks and the Croatian Ustaše. Although the film
emphasizes the battle between the Partisans and the Axis powers, Bulajić
stresses its local dimension – the conflict between the citizens of the former
Yugoslavia. As Commissar Stole says “hatred between the same people is the
most vicious.’”
The film correctly shows that the Partisans fought for much more than
mere survival – from the beginning Tito envisioned the war against the Axis
powers mutating into a revolutionary struggle and turning Yugoslavia into a
communist state. Although most Serbs initially joined the Partisans to
survive the Ustaše genocide, the Partisan leadership from the beginning
emphasized the importance of social revolution that would change the
country’s political and socio-economic landscape. In other words, the unique
conditions of the Axis occupation and the bitter ethnic and ideological
conflicts engendered the revolutionary movement united in its primary
objectives (II/64-68).
To sum up, the film succeeds in demonstrating that the Partisans never
viewed the armed struggle against the Axis powers from a purely military
prospective, but were determined to transform this struggle into a political
battle to create a “genuinely multinational socialist society.” This fact alone
helps explain why the Partisans were much better organized than the
Chetniks, particularly in creating the so-called “free zones” – the Neretva
basin was but one – in which they set up the small replicas of revolutionary
society, later superimposed upon the entire Yugoslavia (II-221-223).
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I. JOZO TOMASEVICH, WAR AND OCCUPATION OF
YUGOSLAVIA, 2001.
II. BORISLAV KOJKO, YUGOSLAVIA’S CIVIL WARS,
1994.
Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of an entire
human group, ... regardless if it is committed on religious, racial,
political or any other grounds.
Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group:
killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
[and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Cultural genocide - any action which has the aim or effect of
depriving a target group of its integrity as distinct peoples, or of
its cultural values or ethnic identities;
- any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing this group
of its lands, territories or resources
- any form of population transfer, which has the aim or effect of
violating or undermining any of their rights
- any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways
of life imposed on the target group by legislative, administrative or
other measures
War crime - a violation of the laws applicable in
armed conflict (as described in international
conventions). Examples of war crimes include
murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian
residents of an occupied territory to slave labor
camps, the murder or ill-treatment of POWs, the
killing of prisoners, the wanton destruction of cities,
towns and villages, and any devastation not justified
by military necessity
Crimes against humanity - are particularly odious offenses in that
they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave
humiliation or degradation of human beings.
They are part either of a government policy (although the
perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a
wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government
or a de facto authority. Murder, extermination, torture, rape,
political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts
reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are
part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts
of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human
rights, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes
under discussion.
Urban II’s speech at Clermont
From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very
frequently has been brought to our ears, that an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, has invaded the
lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire. They circumcise the Christians,
and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font.
Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them
the aid which has often been promised them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds
to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those
Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.
You, the oppressors of children, plunderers of widows; you, guilty of homicide, of sacrilege, robbers of
another's rights; you who await the pay of thieves for the shedding of Christian blood -- as vultures smell fetid
corpses, so do you sense battles from afar and rush to them eagerly. We say this, brethren, that you may restrain
your murderous hands from the destruction of your brothers, and under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle
for your Jerusalem in Christian battle-line.
Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all
dissensions and controversies slumber. That land which as the Scripture says "floweth with milk and honey," was
given by God into the possession of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful
above others, like another paradise of delights.
It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers. The possessions
of the enemy, too, will be yours, since you will make spoil of their treasures and return victorious to your own; or
empurpled with your own blood, you will have gained everlasting glory. All who die by the way, whether by land or by
sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.
HOW TO WRITE A RESPONSE PAPER (1 typed, single-spaced page)
• A response paper is your chance to communicate in writing your
personal viewpoint and personal learning as they relate specifically to
the book, essay, paper, article, etc. The text, the artifact alone, has no
meaning; it is given meaning by you, the writer. In other words, a
response paper is your own interpretation of a given source and should
demonstrate how deeply you have thought about the concepts, values,
and attitudes of the period in question. When analyzing the source,
keep in mind that its author tries to make a point and to promote an
idea. Your objective, therefore, is:
•
•
•
1. Telling what you think these ideas are.
2. Reflecting on these points and ideas and indicating whether
they correspond or conflict with your understanding of a specific
historical event.
• Important Note: Essay organization, style, and grammar are a crucial
part of the assignment and will be graded accordingly.
Response paper is evaluated according to the following criteria:
• Thesis (20 %) – have a well-defined and focused thesis
• Analysis (40%) -- analyze (rather than narrate) the topic.
Support your arguments by specific examples from at least two
sources
• Organization, style, and grammar (40%) – your ideas must
be communicated in proper (academic) English
•

Sample response paper (part 1)
Compare
the basic principles of Judaism and Christianity. Why, in
spite of its humble beginnings, did Christianity achieve the status of
a world religion?
Thesis:
Although early Christians were persecuted, specific socio-economic and
political circumstances forced Roman Emperors to embrace the new creed as a crucial
universal bond that helped them solidify their rule and hold together the multicultural
and multiethnic Roman Empire.
Body of arguments: Judaism and Christianity are two related world religions.
Judaism was founded by Abraham as a monotheistic religion – that is the belief in one,
universal god. According to Judaist teachings, God and Abraham struck an agreement
– the Covenant – according to which ancient Jews would believe and revere only one
God. In exchange, God would love and protect Jews as the chosen people. The second
important premise of Judaism is that God’s love to Jews is contingent upon their belief
in him. If they stop following his guide, they will be punished. The oral traditions of
Judaism were written down in the series of books called the Old Testament roughly
between 500 and 300BC. Christianity took its roots from Judaism, and also is a
monotheistic religion. (II-34).
Yet, despite their close relationship, Christianity and Judaism took a different path of
development eventually became hostile to each other. The point of rupture between
the two religions was teachings of Jesus Christ, who defied the Jewish traditional
religious establishment, and whose appeal to the masses won him a significant popular
backing. (I-123).
Sample response paper (part 2)
The founder of Christianity is believed to have been a man named Jesus. Born
about 4AD in a Jewish family in Bethlehem, Palestine, Jesus was baptized by John the
Baptist and began preaching to the poor and sick in Judea – then a Roman province -and convinced them to follow the teachings of God. The major tenet of this new
religion -- called Christianity due to the Greek word Christos (the Messiah) – is the
belief in one universal God, who loves and protects the human kind. Salvation and the
kingdom of heaven are attainable by everyone who puts his/her trust in the All Mighty.
Around 32AD, Jesus was apprehended by the Jewish leadership alarmed by his
growing popularity among the masses, Fearful of Roman reprisals, Jewish elders
handed Jesus over to the Romans, who crucified him (II-34).
Several reasons contributed to the growth of Christianity. Jesus’ work was
continued by charismatic leaders such as Peter and Paul, who gained popularity in
Europe, especially Greece and Italy. Christianity offered salvation to everybody,
regardless of social status and wealth – poor and rich, sick and healthy, princes and
slaves. (I-187).
Conclusion: As the Roman Empire declined, the emperors sought a device that would
unify the diverse imperial population. Such a device was a single religion, and
Christianity seemed to be popular enough to serve this purpose. In 313AD it was
declared state religion, and from that moment on Christianity would eventually gain
the status of world religion. Thus, in spite of its humble beginnings, a strange creed
preached by a Palestinian Jew named Jesus has become the most popular
Response paper sample
Source:
“By the second half of the 19th century, the
Ottoman Empire had become a poor image of what
once was the mightiest military power. His
majesty’s officials have become corrupt, greedy,
and increasingly ignore my advice and
recommendations.”
-
E. Bartoli, French diplomat in Istambul, 1874
Sample response paper (part 1)
Bartoli seems to complain that as a French representative he exercises
little influence at the Ottoman royal court. Indeed, if placed in the broader context
of the Ottoman-French relations in the 1870s, the letter does reflect the changing
political atmosphere in Istanbul.
Written three years after France's humiliating defeat in the war against
Prussia, the letter indicates that the attitudes of the Ottoman officials, who had
previously regarded France as a European superpower, started to shift and the
admiration for the French army and navy has changed to a barely concealed
contempt. In the 1870s inebriated by the victories over Austria and France, the
German Empire began claiming its position as a world power. Accordingly,
German military and diplomatic missions to the Middle East sidelined their
French, British, and Russian counterparts. More and more the Ottomans (and the
Persians) favored German military experts and engineers over the French and the
British. As importantly, the “capitulations” (trade privileges) previously granted
exclusively to the French and British merchants, now were extended to the
Germans (I-123).
Sample response paper (part 2)
At the same time, the author is raising an important issue of the sustainability of
the Ottoman government, which by this time was ridden with corruption and inefficiency. By
the early 19th century the Ottoman empire was but a bleak image of the once-mighty state.
Its armed forces were poorly trained and paid, and its outdated navy was no match for
French or British steamboats (II-34). The situation in finances and administration was as
appalling. Some provincial governors, who accumulated considerable wealth by mercilessly
taxing their subjects, ruled as they pleased in total disregard of the government in Istanbul.
Others such as the Governorship of Syria, which elicited Bartoli's complains, had virtually
become a safe-heaven for smugglers, pirates, and bandits who ran entire districts
unopposed since the administration was on their payroll (I-187).
In my opinion, even if the Sultan wanted, his power over his governors had faded,
and starting a war against Syria entailed the intervention of the European powers, ever
ready to exploit the empire's political instability (II-37-38). For that matter, in 1874 the
situation in the Caucasus and in Moldavia required the deployment of the bulk of the
Ottoman army against the potential Russian invasion. The Berlin Congress of 1878 would
further weaken the centralized power of the Sultan, opening the road to the decline and the
eventual collapse of the empire..
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I. CHRISTOPHER CATHERWOOD, A BRIEF
HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST: FROM
ABRAHAM TO ARAFAT, 2006.
II. BERNARD LEWIS, WHAT WENT WRONG?
THE CLASH BETWEEN ISLAM AND
MODERNITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, 2002.