History Discussion and Paper

Discussion response question: Carl Solberg provides us with a comparative history of agrarian development in Argentina and Canada as both nations entered the twentieth century. Identify one of the differences between Canada and Argentina that Solberg discusses and comment on the implications for each respective country. -this is the first assignment.

The second assignment is to comment on two student's threads they wrote for the first assignment. Here are two student's threads I just need simple reply to their answer try not to do make it sound too professional, it should be smilar to what the students have written like I like your thread because you mentioned this and blah blah just a regular response. Here are two thread for you to respond to also tell me which student's thread you responded to so I added their name below just say say response to this student's thread and the response only needs to be a paragraph.

1.) There is no doubt that both Argentina and Canada both flourished from 1870 up until around 1930, but they did so in a different manner. They were both not known to be attractive spots to immigrants up until this time period. It is clear that both countries saw a rapid increase in their migrant population but one difference that I would like to point out is how different the growth rates were and why.

Starting in 1870, Canada's population was almost three times greater than Argentina's. Over the course of the next 40 years their populations would come to much closer numbers, within a million people. Argentina's growth rate was almost twice as high as what Canada was seeing despite they both were equipped with highly funded marketing budgets to bring workers to their respective countries. These expensive marketing campaigns provided false expectations for immigrants and if they did not like the conditions in Canada there was always the choice to move to the United States. One of the main reasons for diverse migrant numbers was due to the United States close proximity to Canada. (Solberg, 134) Immigrants moving to Argentina likely did not have another alternative once they arrived. Economic growth in both Canada and Argentina would eventually slow down due to either higher land prices or falling commodity prices so the option to move to the booming United States economy became more appealing. Canada also started to see Americans move north to reap the land of its benefits with their agricultural knowledge but they did not stay long and soon moved back to the United States. - William Alexander

2.) The 1890's to 1920's were a very versatile time for Canada and Argentina. Although in very different geographical areas, both of these countries had sought over lands for agriculture. Due to this, it was a prime spot for immigrants to migrate too for successful futures. Both of these countries were the world's leading exporters at the time. This was due to the massive migration as mentioned, and also foreign investment. Besides this shared identity of a grand exporter, both countries different in various ways.

The immigrants that came to the countries themselves played a key role in this differential. Argentinian immigrants came from countries with little to no powerful political structure. With the lack of this, the Argentinian immigrants were unable to push a large political movement. As stated in the reading, " This absence of an agrarian political movement greatly weakened efforts at land reform." The rapidly growing price of land forced Argentinian farmers to rent land, and this was not beneficial to them whatsoever. On page 138 of the reading Solberg explains the benefit that Canadian policy gave immigrants. The Canadian workers were said to be just as thrifty and hardworking as the Argentinians but they came from a far more sophisticated background. Also, these immigrants saught to get land under the Homestead Law. Even though most failed, this still set them at a more educated mindset than their Argentinian counterparts.

Most importantly, many of these Canadian immigrants came from countries where participation in democratic practices and policies was well established. Solberg goes into detail of the democratic ways and reforms they brought with them, and in contrast to the Argentine situation, established many political movements with the beneficial factors of the farmers in mind. This Canadian immigration solidified the already well established family-owned farms of the great land of Canada. Now, in Canada, these immigrants have a set land to own and farm, whereas in Argentina, immigrant farmers would have to move around from one state to another trying to work around their leases and rentals. This did not allow them to establish their own farming structure.

Overall the political differences between the two countries immigrants was a large factor in how the two developed. Without an educated background in the politics of farming, the Argentinian immigrant farmers were not able to be as successful and work with as much ease as the Canadian immigrant farmers were. -Christopher Bender

After these two assignments I need a short essay here are the instructions for the essay.

Weekly Response Paper

Students are responsible for writing a response paper at the end of each week. The paper's topic will draw from the readings assigned for that week. The paper's question (or set of questions) will build off the weekly discussion response. The purpose of the weekly response paper is for students to demonstrate that they have completed the assigned readings and can critically apply the material to larger questions of history and political economy. The paper should follow the basic format of: introduction, body, conclusion, and footnotes that follow the Chicago-style format (do not cite in the body of the text). All papers should contain the student's own, individual voice that is supported with evidence and facts drawn from the assigned readings. Other secondary sources used to complement or strengthen your argument are acceptable, however Wikipedia entries and blog posts are not acceptable as sources.

Also teacher just sent this

Hello,

I have read through the discussion board posts for this week and wanted to offer some suggestions for your upcoming paper this week.

(1) In terms of the actual paper, there are few questions that might help frame your paper and analysis. One question is: What challenges did the Mexican government face after the revolution? Think about this in terms of conceptions about race in Mexico. Second, compare and contrast race before-and-after the revolution. What was new and represented a rupture? What remained the same and persisted? It is not enough to simply explain racial hierarchies in Mexico during the 19th and 20th centuries, a paper must trace continuities and changes over time.

(2) A component of the paper is analyzing and writing about Diego Rivera's paintings. Think about your strengths as a historian and writer. If you are more inclined to discuss art, focus on the paintings. If visual or art analysis is not a strength, focus more on the Knight essay. That said, BOTH the Knight essay and the paintings must be included in your second essay.

(3) Use the website included in the syllabus to view the collection of Diego Rivera's paintings. You can find a complete collection by clicking on the "WORKS" tab. You can choose four to five paintings for your paper. Just in case you have difficulties doing this, I have included a list of some paintings that are possible choices: (1) "The Exploiters" (2) "Making Tortillas" (3) Peasants (4) Detail from Tenochitlan (5) The Flower Vendor (6) Indian Spinning (7) Zapotec Civilization (8) Triumph of the Revolution (9) The Market. These are simply suggestions, not mandatory selections.

Best,

David Yee

So overall I need three things.

The first one weekly discussion response that needs to be about 2-3 paragraphs

The second one is response to students' weekly discussion responses that needs to be only a paragraph long I need two of these that is why I included two students threads up there for you I need a response on both of them dont make it sound too academic just a regular response of opinion.

The last one is the short essay which I tried to include as much details.