This second edition of TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN WORLD HISTORY, VOLUME 2 presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An instructor’s manual with testing material is available for each volume. USING TAKING SIDES IN THE CLASSROOM is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each TAKING SIDES reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites and is supported by our student website, www.dushkin.com/online.
PART 1. The Modern World
ISSUE 1. Did the Industrial Revolution Lead to a Sexual Revolution?
YES: Edward Shorter, from “Female Emancipation, Birth Control, and Fertility in European History,” The American Historical Review (June 1973)
NO: Louise A. Tilly, Joan W. Scott, and Miriam Cohen, from “Women’s Work and European Fertility Patterns,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History (Winter 1976)
Historian Edward Shorter argues that employment opportunities outside the home that opened up with industrialization led to a rise in the illegitimacy rate, which he attributes to the sexual emancipation of unmarried, working-class women. Historians Louise A. Tilly, Joan W. Scott, and Miriam Cohen counter that unmarried women worked to meet an economic need, not to gain personal freedom, and they attribute the rise in illegitimacy rates to broken marriage promises and the absence of traditional support from family, community, and the church.
ISSUE 2. Was the French Revolution Worth Its Human Costs?
YES: Peter Kropotkin, from The Great French Revolution, 1789-1793, trans. N.F. Dryhurst (Shocken Books, 1971)
NO: The Economist Staff Writer, from “The French Revolution: Bliss Was It in That Dawn?” The Economist (December 24, 1988)
Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), a Russian prince, revolutionary, and anarchist, argues that the French Revolution eradicated both serfdom and absolutism and paved the way for France’s future democratic growth. An article in The Economist argues that the French Revolution "culminated in the guillotine and the substitution of the state for the sovereignty of the nation," leaving behind negative legacies to the modern world.
ISSUE 3. Did British Policy Decisions Cause the Mass Emigration and Land Reforms That Followed the Irish Potato Famine?
YES: Christine Kinealy, from This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine, 1845-52 (Roberts Rinehart, 1995)
NO: Hasia R. Diner, from Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983)
Christine Kinealy, fellow of the University of Liverpool, argues that the British government’s response to the Irish potato famine was deliberately inadequate. The British government’s "hidden agenda" of long-term economic, social, and agrarian reform was accelerated by the famine, and mass emigration was a consequence of these changes. Historian Hasia R. Diner documents large-scale emigration both before and after the Irish potato famine. Diner credits the Irish people with learning from their famine experiences that the reliance of the poor on the potato and the excessive subdivision of land within families were no longer in their own best interests.
ISSUE 4. Did the Meiji Restoration Constitute a Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Japan?
YES: Andrew Gordon, from A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present (Oxford University Press, 2003)
NO: W.G. Beasley, from The Meiji Restoration (Standford University Press, 1972)
Historian Andrew Gordon states that the Meiji Restoration created fundamental changes in Japanese society, thus meriting the term "revolution." Historian W.G. Beasley argues that when compared with other revolutions like the French and Russian, the Meiji Restoration did not constitute a revolution in the classical sense.
ISSUE 5. Were Economic Factors Primarily Responsible for British Imperialism?
YES: Lance E. Davis and Robert A. Huttenback, from Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Economics of British Imperialism, abridged ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1988)
NO: John M. MacKenzie, from The Partition of Africa, 1880-1900: And European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century (Methuen & Co., 1983)
Professor Lance E. Davis and Robert Huttenback state that, although statistics prove that British imperialism was not a profitable venture, it was supported by an economic elite that was able to promote and derive profits from it. Professor John M. MacKenzie argues that the motivation for British imperialism was multicausal and that most of the causes can be found in the general anxiety crisis permeating British society in the late nineteenth century.
ISSUE 6. Was China’s Boxer Rebellion Caused by Environmental Factors?
YES: Paul A. Cohen, from History In Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth (Columbia University Press, 1997)
NO: Henrietta Harrison, from “Justice on Behalf of Heaven: The Boxer Movement,” History Today (September 2000)
Professor Paul A. Cohen contends that while anti-foreign and anti-Christian attitudes played a role in the start of the Boxer rebellion, a more immediate cause was a severe drought and its impact on Chinese society. Historian Henrietta Harrison concedes that while the Boxers were motivated by more than a single factor, opposition to Christian missionary activity was at the core of their rebellion.
PART 2. The Early Twentieth Century
ISSUE 7. Were German Militarism and Diplomacy Responsible for World War I?
YES: V.R. Berghahn, from Imperial Germany, 1871-1914: Economic, Society, Culture, and Politics (Berghahn Books, 1994)
NO: Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., from “The Origins of the War,” in Hew Strachan, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War (Oxford University Press, 1998)
History professor V.R. Berghahn states that, although all of Europe’s major powers played a part in the onset of World War I, recent evidence still indicates that Germany’s role in the process was the main factor responsible for the conflict. History professor Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., argues that the factors and conditions that led to the First World War were a shared responsibility and that no one nation could be blamed for its genesis.
ISSUE 8. Was the Treaty of Versailles Responsible for World War II?
YES: Derek Aldcroft, from “The Versailles Legacy,” History Review (December 1997)
NO: Mark Mazower, from “Two Cheers for Versailles,” History Today (July 1997)
Historian Derek Aldcroft states that a combination of the flaws present in the post-war Versailles Treaty and the resultant actions and inactions of European statesmen created a climate that paved the way to World War II. Historian Mark Mazower finds that while the Treaty of Versailles contained weaknesses, it failed due to a lack of enforcement of its principles by a generation of European leaders.
ISSUE 9. Did the Bolshevik Revolution Improve the Lives of Soviet Women?
YES: Richard Stites, from “Women and the Revolutionary Process in Russia,” in Renate Bridenthal, Claudia Koontz, and Susan M. Stuard, eds., Becoming Visible: Women in European History, 2nd ed. (Houghton Mifflin, 1987)
NO: Lesley A. Rimmel, from “The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia,” The Women’s Review of Books (September 1998)
History professor Richard Stites argues that, in the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution, the Zhenotdel, or Women’s Department, helped many working women take the first steps toward emancipation. Russian scholar Lesley A. Rimmel finds that the Russian Revolution remains unfinished for women, who were mobilized as producers and reproducers for a male political agenda.
ISSUE 10. Was German "Eliminationist Antisemitism" Reponsible for the Holocaust?
YES: Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, from “The Paradigm Challenged,” Tikkun (May/June 1998)
NO: Christopher R. Browning, from “Ordinary Germans or Ordinary Men? A Reply to the Critics,” in Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck, eds., The Holocaust and History: The Known, The Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined (Indiana University Press, 1998)
Political science professor Daniel Goldhagen states that due to the nature of German society in the twentieth century—with its endemic, virulent antisemitism—thousands of ordinary German citizens became willing participants in the implementation of Holocaust horrors. Holocaust historian Christopher R. Browning argues that Goldhagen’s thesis is too simplistic and that a multicausal approach must be used to determine why ordinary German citizens willingly participated in the Holocaust.
ISSUE 11. Should Japanese Emperor Hirohito Have Been Held Responsible for Japan’s World War II Actions?
YES: Herbert Bix, from “Emperor Hirohito’s War,” History Today (December 1999)
NO: Stephen S. Large, from Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan: A Political Biography (Routledge, 1992)
Herbert P. Bix offers proof that Emperor Hirohito should be held responsible for Japan’s World War II actions. Historian Stephen S. Large argues that Emperor Hirohito’s lack of real political power to affect change absolves him from any direct responsibility for World War II.
ISSUE 12. Was Stalin Responsible for the Cold War?
YES: John Lewis Gaddis, from We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (Clarendon Press, 1997)
NO: Martin J. Sherw in, from “The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War,” in Melvyn P. Leffler and David S. Painter, eds., Origins of the Cold War: An International History (Routledge, 1994)
Historian John Lewis G...
