Loading...
The Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson
Quiz by Liliana Colodeeva
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
1. Battle of Lexington At the Battle of Lexington in 1775, British soldiers and colonial militia faced each other on the village green. A shot was fired, but no one knows for sure who fired first. Even so, this moment is often called the beginning of the American Revolution. Why is the Battle of Lexington still considered the start of the American Revolution, even though it is unclear who fired the first shot? A. It marked the first time colonists and British soldiers fought in open battle B. It proved that colonists planned the war long before the fighting began C. It showed that British soldiers were fully responsible for starting the war D. It confirmed that colonists had already declared independence from Britain 2. Battle of Concord After the fighting at Lexington, British troops marched to Concord to destroy colonial supplies. Instead, colonial militia gathered and fought back, forcing the British to retreat toward Boston. Why is the Battle of Concord considered an important turning point in the early American Revolution? A. It showed that colonial militias could organize and successfully push back British troops B. It proved that the British army had already lost control of all the colonies C. It confirmed that the colonies had officially declared independence from Britain D. It demonstrated that foreign countries were already helping the colonial forces 3. Second Continental Congress Much of the early violent conflict between colonists and British soldiers took place in Boston. After fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord near Boston, colonial leaders met at the Second Continental Congress in 1775 to decide what to do next. Which answer best describes the main actions taken by the Second Continental Congress? A. They created an army, chose a leader, and tried to avoid war with Britain B. They declared independence, wrote the Constitution, and ended the war C. They raised taxes, formed a monarchy, and supported British rule D. They ended slavery, gave women rights, and expanded voting laws 4. Olive Branch Petition In 1775, colonial leaders sent a letter called the Olive Branch Petition to King George III of Britain. Based on this situation, what was the main purpose of the Olive Branch Petition sent to the king? A. To ask the king to restore peace between both sides B. To declare independence from Britain and begin a new nation C. To request help from foreign countries in the war effort D. To organize protests against British taxes across the colonies 5. Battle of Bunker Hill On June 17, 1775, during the Battle of Bunker Hill in Boston, colonial forces fought against the British on a hill overlooking the city. The fighting was intense and led to heavy losses on both sides. Which statement best explains why the Battle of Bunker Hill was an important battle in the war? A. The colonists won the battle, showing they were stronger than British forces B. The colonists won the battle, showing the British that the war would be short and easy for the colonists C. The British won the battle, showing the war would be difficult and costly for both sides D. The British won the battle, showing British forces could defeat the colonists easily 6. Pamphlets During the American Revolution, pamphlets were short printed writings that were inexpensive to produce and often written in everyday language so many colonists could read them. How did these features of pamphlets most affect their role in the American Revolution? A. They helped spread ideas widely, allowing more colonists to form and share opinions B. They limited ideas to educated leaders, keeping most colonists uninvolved C. They replaced newspapers entirely, becoming the only source of information D. They prevented disagreement, causing most colonists to think the same way 7. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense In 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, a widely read piece of writing about the relationship between the colonies and Britain. How did this pamphlet most influence colonial thinking during the American Revolution? A. It encouraged colonists to support independence from Britain B. It convinced colonists to remain loyal to the British government C. It explained how colonial armies should organize attacks D. It described laws colonists were expected to follow 8. Declaration of Independence In July 1776, the Declaration of Independence listed complaints against King George III and explained the colonists’ ideas about government and rights. How do these parts of the Declaration of Independence work together to support the colonists’ decision? A. They connect ideas about rights to real examples, justifying separation from Britain B. They describe past events in detail, showing how the war had already ended C. They list future plans for government, explaining how leaders would be chosen D. They organize military actions, showing how the colonies planned to win 9. Washington Crosses the Delaware and Battle of Trenton In December 1776, George Washington led his army across the Delaware River and launched a surprise attack on Hessian mercenaries in Trenton. Which statement best explains why Washington’s crossing of the Delaware and the attack on Trenton was an important turning point in the war? A. It defeated British forces completely, ending the war in a short time B. It boosted morale, helping discouraged soldiers choose to keep fighting C. It brought foreign allies into the war, adding support for the colonies D. It led to independence, allowing the colonies to form a new nation 10. Battle of Saratoga In 1777, American forces defeated the British at the Battle of Saratoga, a major event during the American Revolution. Which statement best explains why the Battle of Saratoga was an important turning point in the war? A. It brought French support, helping Americans gain a strong advantage in the war B. It ended the war quickly, forcing Britain to surrender all control in the colonies C. It improved army training, helping soldiers become more skilled in future battles D. It changed leadership roles, causing new generals to take control of the army 11. Battle of Yorktown In 1781, American forces surrounded British troops at Yorktown, leading to a major moment in the American Revolution. Which statement best explains why the Battle of Yorktown was an important event in the war? A. French forces helped the Americans win, leading to the end of major fighting in the war B. Italian forces helped the British win, leading to a final victory over the American army C. German forces switched sides and helped the Americans win, leading to a final defeat for British troops D. French forces helped the British win, leading to a complete end of the war in the colonies 12. Treaty of Paris After the Battle of Yorktown, British public opinion turned against the war, and peace negotiations began. In 1783, American leaders signed the Treaty of Paris, which included agreements between the United States and Britain. Which statement best explains how the Treaty of Paris reflected the outcome of the American Revolution? A. Both sides made agreements, recognizing independence B. Americans gained independence, taking land without agreements C. British leaders kept control, ending the war with power D. Both sides refused compromise, continuing the warWrite question 2. Early British Actions in the Colonies In 1760, near the end of the Seven Years’ War, a new British king, George III, began his reign. During his 59-year rule, he resisted revolutionary and Napoleonic France. However, George appointed advisors to manage his more distant foreign affairs in North America. These advisors knew very little about the day-to-day lives of colonists and were soon taking actions that enraged many of them. The Proclamation of 1763 The British government faced many problems after the Seven Years’ War. One was how to protect colonists and their land claims as they pushed westward into areas settled by Indigenous groups. In his Proclamation of 1763, George III said to simply draw a line down the crest of the Appalachian Mountains and order colonists not to settle past the boundary. To colonists whose fortunes were founded on Indigenous land, the king’s order suggested tyranny, or the unjust use of government power. They argued that White colonists had already claimed most of the land east of the Appalachians and that farmers had to move west to find land. Besides, colonists and land investors had already crossed the mountains into Indigenous territory. The British government ignored colonists’ arguments. To control the frontier, it sent an additional 7,500 soldiers to the colonies. The Proclamation of 1763 would later be cited as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence. The Stamp Act The British government had other problems besides stopping colonists from encroaching on Indigenous land. Another dilemma was how to pay off the large debt from the Seven Years’ War. The solution seemed obvious to Prime Minister George Grenville, the leader of the British government. People in Great Britain were already paying taxes on everything from windows to salt. In contrast, American colonists were among the most lightly taxed people in the British Empire. It was time, said Grenville, for them to pay their fair share of the cost of Britain protecting colonists and their interests. In 1765, Grenville proposed a new act, or law, called the Stamp Act, which required colonists to buy a stamp for every piece of paper they used. Newspapers, wills, licenses, and even playing cards had to be printed on stamped paper. Again, the colonists sensed tyranny. One newspaper, The Pennsylvania Journal, said that as soon as “this shocking Act was known, it filled all British America from one End to the other, with Astonishment and Grief.” It was not just the idea of higher taxes that upset the colonists. They were willing to pay taxes passed by their own assemblies, in which their representatives could vote on them. However, because the colonists had no representatives in Parliament, they saw the Stamp Act as a violation of their rights as British subjects. For this reason, they argued Parliament had no right to tax them. “No taxation without representation!” they declared. Loyalists simply refused to buy stamps, while other colonists protested the Stamp Act by sending messages to Parliament. Patriots took more aggressive action. Protesters calling themselves the Sons of Liberty organized in 1765 and began attacking tax collectors’ homes. In Connecticut, they even started to bury one tax collector alive. Only when he heard dirt being shoveled onto his coffin did the terrified tax collector agree to resign from his post. After months of protest, Parliament repealed, or canceled, the Stamp Act. Colonists greeted the news with great celebration. Church bells rang, bands played, and everyone hoped the troubles with Great Britain were over. The Quartering Act As anger over the Stamp Act began to fade, Parliament passed another controversial law in 1765. The Quartering Act ordered colonial assemblies to provide British troops with quarters, or housing. The colonists were also told to furnish the soldiers with “candles, firing, bedding, cooking utensils, salt, vinegar, and . . . beer or cider.” Providing these things for British soldiers cost money. New Jersey protested that the new law was “as much an Act for laying taxes” on the colonists as the Stamp Act. New Yorkers asked why they should pay to keep troops in their colony during peacetime. In 1767, the New York assembly decided not to approve any funds for supplies for the British troops, forcing them to remain on their ships. In retaliation, the British government suspended New York’s assembly until it agreed to obey the Quartering Act. Once again, tempers began to rise on both sides of the Atlantic.John Adams the first Vice President and second President of the United States James Armistead black slave who served in the colonial army as a spy General Edward Braddock commander of all British forces in North America during the French and Indian War Nathan Hale "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Patrick Henry Virginian who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" New York City our nation's first capital Battle of Bunker Hill the first major battle in the War for Independence judicial the branch of government that interprets the law executive the branch of government that enforces the law legislative the branch of government that makes the law Articles of Confederation the first plan of government that the United States had agreed upon Bill of Rights lists the rights or freedoms the Constitution gives to Americans; written in the form of ten amendments Constitution of the U.S. plan of government our country still follows today Declaration of Independence document written by Jefferson declaring the independence of the colonies from England First Amendment gives Americans the following freedoms: religion, speech, press, and assembly Treaty of Paris document signed by England giving up the American colonies and making them officially free and independent Inauguration Day The day the President takes his oath of office Valley Forge Washington's army spent the harsh winter of 1777-1778 Second Continental Congress The decision to organize the Continental Army was made at the ??? in 1775. constitutional republic The form of government in which the people and their elected representatives are limited by a constitution patriots Those who wanted America to be free from Britain's controlTHE BATTLE OF THE PHILIPPINE SEA Occured in the Philippine Sea and Marinas The battle engaged the bulk of thepagan American forces, and prevented the Japanese from reinforcing, their fleet in the •Marianas. •A month after, the Japanese LOST THEIR 4 best aircraft carriers in the Battle of Midway, an island northwest of Pearl "Harbor. 1. The Batle of the Philipine Sea lasted just one day June 19- June 20 1944 3. is also called the "Marianas Turkey Shoot” The Battle of the Coral Sea The Coral Sea is Between New Guinea and Australia The Japanese Were Trying to Attack Australia! The U.S. Navy and the Japanese Navy Fought! Nobody Won! U.S. Was Able to STOP the Attack on Australia! (Victory!) The American fleet defeated the Japanese. American planes bombarded Japanese installation in Manila from the air. Air strikes were also carried out in the Visayas. Battle of Okinawa: Battle Details The attack on Okinawa took heavy toll on both sides of the fighting... The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. The Japanese may have lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought. The Americans also lost 36 ships. 368 ships were also damaged. 763 aircraft were destroyed. The Japanese lost 16 ships sunk and over 4,000 aircraft were lost. battle facts -the japanese launched fierce kamikaze attacks l-arge amouunts of civillian deaths -japanese soldiers using civilians as human shields Americans ended with more triumphs in the battles like in: General MacArthur and the Allies next turned to the Island of Iwo Jima The island was critical to the Allies as a base for an attack on Japan It was called the most heavily defended spot on earth Allied and Japanese forces suffered heavy casualties IWO JIMA American soldiers plant the flag ol the Island of Iwo Jima after their victory Battle of Leyte Gulf "Second Battle of the Philippine Sea". Time: October 23 - 26, 1944 during WW. Location: Leyte Gulf in Philippines (East coast), Philippine islands of Leyte, Samar, and Luzon. Largest naval battle in WWII. Leyte was secured and was liberated from the hands of the Japanese Americans decided to launch their attack in Leyte since the weak side of the Japanese fleet was in Visayas. Heavy bombing at the Leyte beaches cleared the way for the landing in Palo, Leyte. Leading the American troops were General Douglas MacArthur and President Osmeña, who took over after the death of President Quezon in Saranak Lake in New York. the battle for the liberation of manila The commonwealth government capital was transferred from tacloban to Manila. Manila once again became the seat of the national leadership. ON july 4, 1945, general macarthur announced the total liberation of the Philippines • The Commonwealth government capital was transferred from Tacloban to Manila. Manila once again became the seat of the national leadership. On July 4, 1945, General MacArthur announced the total liberation of the Philippines. Americans surprised the Japanese with the landing of troops in Lingayen Gulf in Pangasinan. • The Filipino guerillas had already cleared the area and neutralized many of the Japanese forces. The first target was the UST, which was used by the Japanese as a camp for civilian prisoners of war, and they were able to free them. • More than 1000 POWs from Bataan and Corregidor were also freed from the Bilibid Prisons. • The battle of Manila was recorded as the fiercest urban fighting in the entire Pacific War. WATERLOO DAILY COURIER-NEWSPAPER “PEACE! WAR ENDS; JAPANESE ACCEPT ALLIED TERMS. ON EMPEROR" On August 6, due to persistent refusal of Japan to yield, another atomic bomb was dropped in the shipbuilding city of Nagasaki. On August 15, V-J Day (Victory in Japan), Emperor Hirohito finally admitted defeat and on September 3, 1945 the document of surrender was signed on board of the U.S. battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay. With the liberation of the Philippines, the Americar troops moved on to finally end the war in Asia. The Japanese cities of Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Kure were bombed. In July 26, the allies demanded surrender but the Japanese continued to hold on to their belief that surrender is a dishonor. Atomic bomb was dropped on the populous city of Hiroshima, 60% of the city was destroyed. It was estimated that there were more than 80 000 people died on the spot and more than 37 000 suffered severe injuries. Today, the HIROSHIMA SHRINE serves as a reminder of th horrors of war and the need to preserve PEACE in the world. THE POSTWAR PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH-• Philippine Commonwealth resumed. Osmeña was confronted with a war - ravaged country with no financial resources for PROBLEMS • Poverty • Destruction of Properties • Unemployment • Price Increase • Hoarding • Graft and Corruption HINDRANCES -Rehabilitation of INDUSTRIES COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE OF LACK OF FUND -RAILWAYS WERE DESTROYED THAT LED TO SLOW PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION -PCAU (Philippine Civil Affairs Unit) was established by MacArthur to provide emergency relief in areas liberated by the Americans. - It organized food distribution centers. CHALLENGES TO INDEPENDENCE • On April 30, 1946, the Philippine the US President. BIASED AGREEMENTS: Rehabilitation or the Tydings Act of 1946, passed by the US Congress, was approved by Commission • This Act created the US Philippine War Damage The Act also provided for the transfer of $100,000,000 surplus property of the United States to the Philippines. The Philippine Armed Forces received large quantities of valuable military equipment and supplies. BIASED AGREEMENTS: • The United States Congress offered $800 million for post World War Il rebuilding funds if the Bell Trade Act was ratified by the Philippine Congress Parity rights granting U.S. citizens and corporations rights to Philippine natural resources equal to (in parity with) those of Philippine citizens The Philippines used to celebrate its Independence Day on July 4, and not June 12, by virtue of the Truman Proclamation in 1946. In the early 1960s, however, the Philippine Historical Association lobbied to bring back June 12 as our Independence Day. In 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal issued a proclamation to make the change official. DECLARATION OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE • On July 4, 1946, the Americans granted independence to the Philippines.MYTH The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine. FACT Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to force the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million. The British limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine when, in 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some thirty-five thousand square miles—to create a new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan’s emir. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This contradicted Article 6 of the Mandate which stated that “the Administration of Palestine…shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”2 Ultimately, the British admitted that the argument about the country’s absorptive capacity was specious. The Peel Commission said, “The heavy immigration in the years 1933–36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3 MYTH The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled. FACT The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British restricted Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country’s “absorptive capacity.” During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 83,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated. In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.5 The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6 The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within ten years and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95% of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. Jewish Immigration to Palestine7 1919 1,806 1931 4,075 1920 8,223 1932 12,533 1921 8,294 1933 37,337 1922 8,685 1934 45,267 1923 8,175 1935 66,472 1924 13,892 1936 29,595 1925 34,386 1937 10,629 1926 13,855 1938 14,675 1927 3,034 1939 31,195 1928 2,178 1940 10,643 1929 5,249 1941 4,592 1930 4,944 By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.8 The British governor of the Sinai from 1922 to 1936 observed, “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”9 The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is…due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10 MYTH The British changed their policy to allow Holocaust survivors to settle in Palestine. FACT The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain’s foreign minister Ernest Bevin replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”11 Some Jews reached Palestine, many smuggled in on dilapidated ships organized by the Haganah. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, sixty-five “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps on Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, and 28,000 remained imprisoned when Israel declared independence.12 MYTH As the Jewish population grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened. FACT In July 1921, Hasan Shukri, the mayor of Haifa and president of the Muslim National Associations, sent a telegram to the British government in reaction to a delegation of Palestinians that went to London to try to stop the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. Shukri wrote: We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development of our country as may be judged from the fact that the towns inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre, and Nazareth where no Jews reside are steadily declining.13 The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.14 The permanent Arab population increased by 120% between 1922 and 1947.15 This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states—constituting 37% of the total immigration to pre-state Israel—by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.16 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945, and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.17 The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922–1947, the non-Jewish population increased by 290% in Haifa, 131% in Jerusalem, and 158% in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42% in Nablus, 78% in Jenin, and 37% in Bethlehem.18 MYTH Jews stole Arab land. FACT Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. About 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads, and Bedouins.19 Jews went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap, and—most important—without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” He insisted that “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” Instead, he advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”20 Jews only began to purchase cultivated land after buying all the uncultivated territory. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.21 When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed, “They [the Jews] paid high prices for the land and, in addition, they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”22 In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80% were ruled invalid by the government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the government land offer.23 In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by local Palestinian leaders who were later joined by Arab volunteers led by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawuqji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.24 The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.”25 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living, and ample employment opportunities.26 It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original). —Transjordan’s king Abdullah27 Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938 (which began in April 1936 with the murder of two Jews by Arabs and the subsequent murder of two Arab workers by members of the Jewish underground28), the British high commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.29 The Jews paid exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.”30 By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 were acquired from the mandatory government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.31 Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, and the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and s sold land to the Jews. As’ad el-Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews.32 MYTH The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews. FACT In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen (“one who sacrifices himself”) to terrorize Jews. El-Husseini hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country.33 Arab radicals gained influence because the British administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they began a revolt against British rule. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later chief political officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.” The British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor (financial adviser to the military administration in Palestine 1919–23) met with el-Husseini in 1920, a few days before Easter, and told him that “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world…that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine administration but in Whitehall.” He added that “if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General [Louis] Bols [chief administrator in Palestine, 1919–20] and General [Edmund] Allenby [commander of the Egyptian force, 1917–19, then high commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.”34 El-Husseini took the colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of el-Husseini’s overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. He escaped, however, and was sentenced to ten years in absentia. A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon el-Husseini and to appoint him Mufti (a cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places). By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years. They were released a few months later.35 Samuel met with el-Husseini on April 11, 1921, and was assured “that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility.” Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left forty-three Jews dead.36 El-Husseini consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools, and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute that “no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin.”37 The Mufti’s henchmen also ensured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians who discussed cooperation with the Jews from rival clans. As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, el-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.38 The Arabs found rioting an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves but made little effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: The Arabs feared being displaced by the Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs learned they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging riots. This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: “The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy.”39 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration. The Arab fear of being “displaced” or “dominated” was an excuse for their attacks on Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor—nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords—they were motivated by economics, the radical Islamic views of the Mufti, and misunderstanding. In 1929, Arab provocateurs convinced the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today to incite violence). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews, which spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron. Again, the British administration made no effort to prevent the violence, and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, most of Hebron’s Jews had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms.40 After the riots, the British ordered an investigation, resulting in the Passfield White Paper. It said the “immigration, land purchase and settlement policies of the Zionist Organization were already or were likely to become, prejudicial to Arab interests. It understood the mandatory government’s obligation to the non-Jewish community to mean that Palestine’s resources must be primarily reserved for the growing Arab economy.”41 This meant it was necessary to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. MYTH The Mufti was not a Nazi collaborator. FACT In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti sent Hitler fifteen drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. He also asked the Axis powers to “accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the interest of the Arabs, and by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”42 In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.” He added, “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely…the Jews.” Hitler told the Mufti he opposed the creation of a Jewish state and that Germany’s objective was destroying the Jewish element in the Arab sphere.43 In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting twenty thousand Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut where he died in 1974. MYTH The bombing of the King David Hotel was part of a deliberate terror campaign against civilians. FACT British troops seized the Jewish Agency compound on June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were arrested. A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain’s restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death. In response to the British provocations, and a desire to demonstrate that the Jews’ spirit could not be broken, the United Resistance Movement planned to bomb the King David Hotel, which housed the British military command and the Criminal Investigation Division in addition to hotel guests. The Haganah pulled out of the plot and left it up to the Irgun. Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up. Three telephone calls were placed on July 22, 1946, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The call to the hotel was received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying, “We don’t take orders from the Jews.”44 As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the main part of the hotel were injured.45 For decades, the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament provided the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.46 In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which Arab leaders hailed as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.47 1 Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), p. 172When it was his turn to speak, Adam Malik, Presidium Minister for Political Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, recalled that about a year before, in Bangkok, at the conclusion of the peace talks between Indonesia and Malaysia, he had explored the idea of an organization such as ASEAN with his Malaysian and Thai counterparts. One of the “angry young men” in his country’s struggle for independence two decades earlier, Adam Malik was then 50 years old and one of a Presidium of five led by then General Soeharto that was steering Indonesia from the verge of economic and political chaos. He was the Presidium’s point man in Indonesia’s efforts to mend fences with its neighbors in the wake of an unfortunate policy of confrontation. During the past year, he said, the Ministers had all worked together toward the realization of the ASEAN idea, “making haste slowly, in order to build a new association for regional cooperation.” Adam Malik went on to describe Indonesia’s vision of a Southeast Asia developing into “a region which can stand on its own feet, strong enough to defend itself against any negative influence from outside the region.” Such a vision, he stressed, was not wishful thinking, if the countries of the region effectively cooperated with each other, considering their combined natural resources and manpower. He referred to differences of outlook among the member countries, but those differences, he said, would be overcome through a maximum of goodwill and understanding, faith and realism. Hard work, patience and perseverance, he added, would also be necessary. The countries of Southeast Asia should also be willing to take responsibility for whatever happens to them, according to Tun Abdul Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, who spoke next. In his speech, he conjured a vision of an ASEAN that would include all the countries of Southeast Asia. Tun Abdul Razak was then concurrently his country’s Minister of Defence and Minister of National Development. It was a time when national survival was the overriding thrust of Malaysia’s relations with other nations and so as Minister of Defence, he was in charge of his country’s foreign affairs. He stressed that the countries of the region should recognize that unless they assumed their common responsibility to shape their own destiny and to prevent external intervention and interference, Southeast Asia would remain fraught with danger and tension. And unless they took decisive and collective action to prevent the eruption of intra-regional conflicts, the nations of Southeast Asia would remain susceptible to manipulation, one against another. “We the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia,” Tun Abdul Razak said, “must get together and form by ourselves a new perspective and a new framework for our region. It is important that individually and jointly we should create a deep awareness that we cannot survive for long as independent but isolated peoples unless we also think and act together and unless we prove by deeds that we belong to a family of Southeast Asian nations bound together by ties of friendship and goodwill and imbued with our own ideals and aspirations and determined to shape our own destiny”. He added that, “with the establishment of ASEAN, we have taken a firm and a bold step on that road”. For his part, S. Rajaratnam, a former Minister of Culture of multi-cultural Singapore who, at that time, served as its first Foreign Minister, noted that two decades of nationalist fervor had not fulfilled the expectations of the people of Southeast Asia for better living standards. If ASEAN would succeed, he said, then its members would have to marry national thinking with regional thinking. “We must now think at two levels,” Rajaratnam said. “We must think not only of our national interests but posit them against regional interests: that is a new way of thinking about our problems. And these are two different things and sometimes they can conflict. Secondly, we must also accept the fact, if we are really serious about it, that regional existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. We must make these painful and difficult adjustments. If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.” S. Rajaratnam expressed the fear, however, that ASEAN would be misunderstood. “We are not against anything”, he said, “not against anybody”. And here he used a term that would have an ominous ring even today: balkanization. In Southeast Asia, as in Europe and any part of the world, he said, outside powers had a vested interest in the balkanization of the region. “We want to ensure,” he said, “a stable Southeast Asia, not a balkanized Southeast Asia. And those countries who are interested, genuinely interested, in the stability of Southeast Asia, the prosperity of Southeast Asia, and better economic and social conditions, will welcome small countries getting together to pool their collective resources and their collective wisdom to contribute to the peace of the world.” The goal of ASEAN, then, is to create, not to destroy. This, the Foreign Minister of Thailand, Thanat Khoman, stressed when it was his turn to speak. At a time when the Vietnam conflict was raging and American forces seemed forever entrenched in Indochina, he had foreseen their eventual withdrawal from the area and had accordingly applied himself to adjusting Thailand’s foreign policy to a reality that would only become apparent more than half a decade later. He must have had that in mind when, on that occasion, he said that the countries of Southeast Asia had no choice but to adjust to the exigencies of the time, to move toward closer cooperation and even integration. Elaborating on ASEAN objectives, he spoke of “building a new society that will be responsive to the needs of our time and efficiently equipped to bring about, for the enjoyment and the material as well as spiritual advancement of our peoples, conditions of stability and progress. Particularly what millions of men and women in our part of the world want is to erase the old and obsolete concept of domination and subjection of the past and replace it with the new spirit of give and take, of equality and partnership. More than anything else, they want to be master of their own house and to enjoy the inherent right to decide their own destiny …” While the nations of Southeast Asia prevent attempts to deprive them of their freedom and sovereignty, he said, they must first free themselves from the material impediments of ignorance, disease and hunger. Each of these nations cannot accomplish that alone, but by joining together and cooperating with those who have the same aspirations, these objectives become easier to attain. Then Thanat Khoman concluded: “What we have decided today is only a small beginning of what we hope will be a long and continuous sequence of accomplishments of which we ourselves, those who will join us later and the generations to come, can be proud. Let it be for Southeast Asia, a potentially rich region, rich in history, in spiritual as well as material resources and indeed for the whole ancient continent of Asia, the light of happiness and well-being that will shine over the uncounted millions of our struggling peoples.” The Foreign Minister of Thailand closed the inaugural session of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations by presenting each of his colleagues with a memento. Inscribed on the memento presented to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, was the citation, “In recognition of services rendered by His Excellency Adam Malik to the ASEAN organization, the name of which was suggested by him.” And that was how ASEAN was conceived, given a name, and born. It had been barely 14 months since Thanat Khoman brought up the ASEAN idea in his conversations with his Malaysian and Indonesian colleagues. In about three more weeks, Indonesia would fully restore diplomatic relations with Malaysia, and soon after that with Singapore. That was by no means the end to intra-ASEAN disputes, for soon the Philippines and Malaysia would have a falling out on the issue of sovereignty over Sabah. Many disputes between ASEAN countries persist to this day. But all Member Countries are deeply committed to resolving their differences through peaceful means and in the spirit of mutual accommodation. Every dispute would have its proper season but it would not be allowed to get in the way of the task at hand. And at that time, the essential task was to lay the framework of regional dialogue and cooperation. The two-page Bangkok Declaration not only contains the rationale for the establishment of ASEAN and its specific objectives. It represents the organization’s modus operandi of building on small steps, voluntary, and informal arrangements towards more binding and institutionalized agreements. All the founding member states and the newer members have stood fast to the spirit of the Bangkok Declaration. Over the years, ASEAN has progressively entered into several formal and legally-binding instruments, such as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the 1995 Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. Against the backdrop of conflict in the then Indochina, the Founding Fathers had the foresight of building a community of and for all Southeast Asian states. Thus the Bangkok Declaration promulgated that “the Association is open for participation to all States in the Southeast Asian region subscribing to the aforementioned aims, principles and purposes.” ASEAN’s inclusive outlook has paved the way for community-building not only in Southeast Asia, but also in the broader Asia Pacific region where several other inter-governmental organizations now co-exist. The original ASEAN logo presented five brown sheaves of rice stalks, one for each founding member. Beneath the sheaves is the legend “ASEAN” in blue. These are set on a field of yellow encircled by a blue border. Brown stands for strength and stability, yellow for prosperity and blue for the spirit of cordiality in which ASEAN affairs are conducted. When ASEAN celebrated its 30th Anniversary in 1997, the sheaves on the logo had increased to ten – representing all ten countries of Southeast Asia and reflecting the colors of the flags of all of them. In a very real sense, ASEAN and Southeast Asia would then be one and the same, just as the Founding Fathers had envisioned. This article is based on the first chapter of ASEAN at 30, a publication of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in commemoration of its 30th Anniversary on 8 August 1997, written by Jamil Maidan Flores and Jun Abad.Musical Texture Texture Musical texture is the element of music that analyzes musical layers in terms of number and function. The most basic texture is called monophonic. Oh mama, I'm in fear for my life from the long arm of the law. Monophonic texture has only one layer, a melody. With monophony, it doesn't matter how many instruments and or voices are present if they are all singing or playing the same thing at the same time. It also doesn't matter if the voices or instruments are on the exact same frequency, or if they are singing in octaves. An octave is the distance between two musical pitches that sound almost the same, but one is higher and one is lower. It also doesn't matter if drums are present or not. In most cases, drums, the rhythmic layer, are neither melody nor harmony, and therefore are generally not considered when determining texture type. Too much monophony can be boring, so most music has another kind of layer, harmony. When a melody is supported by a harmony, the texture is homophonic. No one may ever know the feelings inside my mind. All the lines I ever write are running out of time. One layer grabs your attention, and the other layer is just hanging out in the background. Most popular music is homophonic. Notice how there was only one instrument in the previous example, a piano, but there were two different things happening on that instrument, a melody, and a harmony. What if a piece of music has multiple independent layers happening at the same time, and you're not sure which one is the melody? This is called polyphony. Polyphony can occur if you take the same melody but start it at staggered intervals. This is called a round. ♪ The last texture is called heterophony. Heterophony is relatively rare in Western music but is very common in non-Western music. It occurs when there are two or more versions of the same melody happening at the same time. Usually, one of the melody lines has more notes than the other, a kind of musical decoration, and or a slightly different rhythmic pattern. Songs will often use a variety of textures to keep the piece interesting. Come on, I need you, I swear, at this moment, you need everything. Come on, I need you, I swear, at this moment, you need everything. Start trying to identify the musical textures in your favorite music.7.012 Employee Health The Center provides a safe working environment for all employees through a collaborative effort with them and the organization’s infection control program to identify infectious conditions that may put staff, patients and visitors at risk. Health evaluations, immunity testing for measles, mumps rubella and chickenpox, tuberculosis screening and immunity testing for hepatitis B and if not immune either signs declination form or accepts 3 dose vaccine series. (Rrefer to the Employee and Occupational Health Section policy Chapter 3.21) It is the center’s policy to monitor Health Care Associated Infections (HAI) in patients and personnel working in the Center as part of its ongoing program in Infection Prevention and Control. Staff should be encouraged to stay home when they have signs and symptoms of an infectious disease. If a staff develops signs and symptoms while at work, the person of other personnel and patients who may have been exposed to a staff member with a communicable disease should be taken into consideration. Patients and personnel can be told that they were exposed to a certain disease without disclosing the index case’s identity. In addition we work together to provide an annual influenza vaccination program that includes all staff who have patient contact, and licensed independent practitioners. Environmental Rounds - Environmental rounds are performed daily by assigned staff members, ie. “safety officer”. Feedback on opportunities for improvement is given to the Infection Control Coordinator and QAPI committee and then reported to the board Education – Employee education includes: General information about infections Techniques for prevention, surveillance, investigation and control Review of policies and procedures related to infection control: (See attachment B, policy and procedure reference list) Employee health practices; refer to Administration 3.16 Orientation and Training Offer of Hepatitis B vaccination & post exposure evaluations Annual TB skin testing Provides access to influenza vaccinations. Educates staff and licensed independent practitioners about influenza vaccination; non-vaccine infection control measures (such as the use of Droplet Precautions); and diagnosis, transmission, and potential impact of influenza. Annually evaluates vaccination participation and non-participation in the influenza immunization program and reports to Department of Health.