Chat with us, powered by LiveChat make an argument for how war time changes or challenges the status quo and alters the meaning of citizenship. Also discuss how the aftermath of war can change or create issues regarding citizenship. | Credence Writers
+1(978)310-4246 [email protected]

You MUST use at least two of your Journals, and cite at least four primary source documents in your argument.
Format: Papers will be five to six pages. The papers should be typed in Times New Roman 12-point font, double-spaced, with one-inch margins, and page numbers. The papers should have your name, class name, instructor name, and the date the assignment is due on the first page. A cover page is not required. All work must be correctly cited in Chicago-Turabian format footnotes and with a works cited.

You should not have personal pronouns in your analysis, nor should you include contractions or other informal language.

***Use only the prmary sources from these 2 links:

21. World War I & Its Aftermath

25. The Cold War

I need to retrieve my second journal discussing world war I, which I will upload tomorrow.Journal 10

Throughout the cold war, the western bloc and the United States were becoming regressive in who they were granting citizenship to. They became to be stingier on who would be granted citizenship which caused a large halt in progression to many groups of people which were pursuing said citizenship. Although the United States seemed to be against the communist Soviet Union, their very own government seemed to be composed of officials that were known to have communist ideologies of their own.

In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy spoke out and exposed the governments composition of many known communist elected officials. “I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.”[ Congressional Record, 81st, 2nd, pt 2, 1954-56 / U.S. Senate, State Department Loyalty Investigation Committee on Foreign Relations, 81st Congress. Available online via History Matters (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6456)] Upon saying these words, Americans began actively participating in anti-communist pursuits which emphasized how unpatriotic and un-American it is to have such beliefs. The government in panic, attempted to cover up what McCarthy had called them out for. They were not eager in condemning the communist officials among them and rather turned the blind eye.

Though they had disregarded the communism within their own government, they used it as an excuse to put a standstill in granting citizenship. In the case of Paul Robeson, a popular African American political activist, who was fighting against prejudice, he was called out as being communist in attempt to silence him and his wishes of pursuing citizenship and equal rights. During trial he was pestered for being a communist rather than discussing the real issue at hand which was citizenship. “I am not being tried for whether I am a Communist, I am being tried for fighting for the rights of my people, who are still second-class citizens in this United States of America.”[ I am not being tried for whether I am a Communist, I am being tried for fighting for the rights of my people, who are still second-class citizens in this United States of America.]

The pressure towards Robeson of being communist is rather ironic after McCarthy had exposed the government just six years prior. The government at the time seemed to be anti-communist when it fit their agenda rather than being reasonable and supporting one side or the other of the spectrum.