GRADE 11
HISTORY PAPER
JUNE MID-YEAR EXAMINATION
EXEMPLAR PAPER 2014
ADDENDUM
This addendum consists of 9 pages.
|
-
COMMUNIST RUSSIA, 1900 - 1940
QUESTION 1
KEY QUESTION: WHAT WAS THE ROLE OF WOMEN UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF LENIN AND STALIN IN RUSSIA IN THE 1900s?
SOURCE 1A
An extract explaining what life was like under Lenin’s rule in Russia in the 1900s.
For a short time under Lenin, women had enjoyed a much freer status. In Marxist theory, treating women as second class was a capitalist way of life, and marriage was seen as little more than prostitution with the male head of the house exploiting his wife and then using any resulting children as a workforce to bring in money for the family. In Marxist thought, marriage was an unnecessary arrangement and relationships should be less fixed. Children also did not belong to the family to which they were born but to society.
Life for women after 1917 was a lot more liberal when compared to the ‘old days’ of tsarist Russia. Among other things, divorce was made a lot easier to obtain under Lenin. Women were invited to work in "male jobs" such as factory work and to become politically involved in the Communist Party, although few did join. Between Lenin and Alexandra Kollontai (female leader of the Zhentodel, the women’s branch of the Communist Party) marriage was almost destroyed. The idea had been to allow divorce with only one partner requesting the divorce, as opposed to both partners before. This had been to allow women to escape abusive marriages more easily. But in reality, this resulted in more men escaping inconvenient marriages by simply divorcing their wife.
Taken from: Russia/AlexandraKollontaiontheroleofwomen.htm [Accessed on 1 February 2014]
|
SOURCE 1B
The extract highlights the role of women under Stalin’s rule in Russia in the 1900s.
Stalin's bureaucracy (government), contrary to Lenin, thought the traditional family as the basic unit of society was useful to enforce its policies. Therefore it formulated new laws to bring that new structure back. It placed new restrictions on women’s independence. First, divorce became more difficult to obtain, because marital stability was a necessity in the newly bureaucratized Soviet Union. Only a few could actually afford to get a divorce because the government required payments (often enormous) for divorce. Also, abortions were abolished except for cases in which the woman's health became a problem. The government coercively (forcefully) instructed women that they had to learn to "enjoy motherhood." This restriction on abortion was caused mainly by the shortage of labour after World War I and the civil war; its purpose was to increase the population. Women who gave birth to more than 9 children were awarded medals. Lastly, the number of communal services such as nurseries and laundries that had been provided to help women focus on their work slowly declined, causing women to be inevitably tied down at their homes.
Taken from: Life under Stalin
|
SOURCE 1C
This source explains the various roles women played in Russian society.
During the famine that followed collectivization, women suffered from the shortages of food, which posed a direct threat to their traditional role as family providers. The hardships of rapid industrialization and urbanization, including shortages of housing, lack of services, and other difficulties, were borne disproportionately by women even as they also coped with increased demands and requirements in their employment.
For the Soviet population, however, the 1930s were also a period of transformations (changes) in work, family life, household activities, and political involvement that inevitably combined "positive" elements with the "negative" consequences described above. More women entered the labour force and educational institutions, yet even as their numbers increased throughout the economy, proportionally they remained concentrated in certain fields, such as medicine, education, and domestic services, which were lower paying, less prestigious, and certainly not as politically influential. As millions of people migrated (moved) from villages to the rapidly growing cities, women found new opportunities for work, study, and leisure, even as those left behind in the villages had to bear an increasing share of the labour burden with even fewer resources.
Finally, the ideological (moral) commitment to women’s equality and emancipation (freedom) was not shared by all men, and on a daily level, women continued to encounter harassment (pestering), prejudice (bias), and exploitation (abuse). By exploring these "everyday" aspects of Stalinism, these materials provide insights into the ways that Soviet women in particular, but the population more generally, coped with the demands and dilemmas (problems) of dictatorship.
Taken from: An Introductory Essay of Stalinism
|
SOURCE 1D
Chart of "Women in the Soviet Labour Force: Total Number and Percent of Workforce."
|
1929
|
1930
|
1931
|
1932
|
1933
|
1934
|
1935
|
In the whole economy
|
3,304,000
|
3,877,000
|
4,197,000
|
6,007,000
|
6,908,000
|
7,204,000
|
7,881,000
|
27.2%
|
26.7%
|
26.9%
|
27.4%
|
30.5%
|
31.7%
|
33.4%
|
Heavy industry
|
939,000
|
1,236,000
|
1,440,000
|
2,043,000
|
2,207,000
|
2,274,000
|
2,627,000
|
27.9%
|
29.0%
|
29.3%
|
32.3%
|
34.5%
|
35.6%
|
38.3%
|
Construction
|
64,000
|
156,000
|
189,000
|
380,000
|
437,000
|
454,000
|
450,000
|
7.0%
|
9.6%
|
10.1%
|
12.8%
|
16.0%
|
18.7%
|
19.7%
|
Agriculture
|
441,000
|
425,000
|
221,000
|
394,000
|
508,000
|
506,000
|
685,000
|
28.0%
|
27.4%
|
23.1%
|
21.3%
|
24.2%
|
25.4%
|
27.0%
|
Transport
|
104,000
|
146,000
|
173,000
|
243,000
|
322,000
|
358,000
|
384,000
|
8.0%
|
9.7%
|
10.2%
|
11.6%
|
13.8%
|
15.1%
|
16.6%
|
Trade & food service
|
134,000
|
279,000
|
405,000
|
675,000
|
786,000
|
766,000
|
822,000
|
19.0%
|
28.0%
|
34.6%
|
28.9%
|
40.5%
|
40.0%
|
39.4%
|
*Institutions
|
961,000
|
1,134,000
|
1,245,000
|
1,593,000
|
1,766,000
|
1,864,000
|
1,978,000
|
38.2%
|
29.6%
|
40.3%
|
42.5%
|
45.2%
|
47.6%
|
48.8%
|
-
Institutions refers to education, health care, government, and administrative positions
Taken from: In Zhenshchina v SSSR (Moscow, 1936).
TOPIC 2: CAPITALISM IN THE USA, 1900 - 1940
QUESTION 2
2.1 Source 2A
An extract, from a speech by Herbert Hoover, taken from The USA in the Twentieth Century by P Lane.
During his campaign Hoover stressed the great prosperity enjoyed by the majority of Americans. He claimed that the main reason for this state of things was that the government left people alone to get on with their own affairs. This 'rugged individualism' had made the US: '... the land of opportunity ... not merely because of ... its resources and industry, but because of the freedom of initiative and enterprise. Russia has resources equal to ours ... but she had not had the blessings of ... our social system ...'By adherence to the principles of self-government, liberty, equal opportunity and freedom to the individual, our American experiment ... has yielded a degree of well-being un-paralleled in all the world. It has come nearer to the abolition of poverty, to the abolition of fear of want, than humanity has ever reached before ... . Hoover promised that he would continue this policy of non-interference; he was, he said, convinced that prosperity would go on increasing until poverty would cease to exist and there would be 'a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage'. Hoover's confidence did not seem unreal in the light of the way in which the USA had grown during the 1920s. In 1929 a leading businessman told the Americans that they were 'only at the beginning of a period which will go down in history as a golden age'. Most Americans agreed with him. It is not surprising that Hoover won the election of 1928; why should the Americans want to change from the Republicans to the Democrats?
2.2 Source 2B
USA: Unemployment rate in the 1930s in millions
http://www.sd104.s-cook.k12.il.us/students/math/2ndquarter2007
Source 2C
Taken from: The Lean Years, A History of the American worker, 1920 - 1933
By Irving Bernstein, Frances Fox Piven, 1969, Chicago
Source 2D
Great Depression Picture: A Farm Foreclosure Sale (1933) - (Picture from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, courtesy of the National Archives and Records administration.) Picture depicts hardship experienced by farmers in the loss of their farms
TOPIC 3: IDEAS OF RACE IN THE LATE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES
QUESTION 3
SOURCE 3A
An extract of policies and the impact it had on the Aborigine people in Australia.
Aboriginal family life has been disrupted and forcibly changed over the last two hundred years, as a result of the many segregation and assimilation policies introduced by Australian governments. Often a combination of the two was employed. The policy of segregation has impacted upon Aboriginal family life, for through this policy, Aboriginals were restricted and prohibited to practice their traditional culture, hence, resulting in the loss of their Indigenous identity and limiting the cultural knowledge for future Aboriginal generations. The segregation policy also achieved in disfiguring the roles of family members, primarily the male's role within the family.
The policy of assimilation, in comparison to the segregation policies, has also affected Aboriginal family life, because through the removal of children from their Aboriginal homes they to as a result were deprived of their Indigenous identity and cultural links. However, the policy of assimilation has had far greater an impact upon Aboriginal family life, for it has not only separated families and communities, but denied the parenting and nurturing of a generation of Aboriginal peoples and has also attributed to breakdowns in relationships between the non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal parent.
Source taken from: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Segregation-Assimilation-Policies-Impacted-Aboriginal-43965.html [Accessed on 17 March 2013]
|
SOURCE 3B
This is an extract from an article titled: Aboriginal Australia about the impact of the Australian policies on Aborigines.
From 1869 right up until the 1970s the Australian Government operated a policy of forced assimilation, now known as 'The Stolen Generations'. The Federal and State Governments, along with many Church agencies, were responsible for systematically removing children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders families. It was official government policy to do so, the idea being that the children would be better off growing up as modern, white Australians.
Quite why they felt this was necessary is unclear. One unlikely theory is that the government was trying to save the younger generation from the smallpox epidemic that was expected to wipe out the Aboriginal population. Others say it was for child protection (presumably from a 'savage' life), and other theories point to 'assimilation' of the indigenous peoples into a 'superior' western lifestyle. Whatever the reasons, up to 100,000 children were forcibly taken from their families during that period and placed with white adoptive families.
After mounting pressure from the people of Australia, it was only in February 2008 that the Aboriginal people finally received a formal apology from then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Previous Prime Ministers had refused to apologize, and had even contested the usage of the term 'stolen'.
Source: http://www.embraceaustralia.com/culture/aboriginal-australia/
|
SOURCE 3C
An extract from the text of Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd's speech to Parliament published in the Sidney Morning Herald , 13 February 2008.
Source taken from: www.reconciliationsa.org.au [Accessed 18 March 2013]
SOURCE 3D
An extract from an article titled: Thoughts on the apology from a Stolen Generations child by Melissa Brickell, 12 February 2013. She is the daughter of a member of the Stolen Generations, and Director of Reconciliation Victoria.
The government built the national reconciliation memorial, with a significant tribute to Stolen Generations. The river of tears at the memorial site is fitting: the grief and trauma of Stolen Generations, their families and their communities, is present and very real. The memorial was a first step which moved beyond the denial in Australian history that anything wrong or evil ever happened to Aboriginal people.
The Apology itself suggests the possibility of healing for Stolen Generations and other Australians with saddened hearts. Stolen Generations and their families and many other Australians continue to come together to celebrate the Apology, and to put pressure on the government to fully realise justice for Stolen Generations peoples. Some organisations are still offering programs, and their work continues to support the Stolen Generations.
But we should not dwell on the Apology and glorify it while there is still much-needed support and greater justice to be achieved for Stolen Generations and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia.
The denial of natural justice through compensation for genocide is a selfish decision with moral implications. This chapter in Australia's history is not yet complete. The reparations and compensation to Stolen Generations by government would be a truer reflection of the recognition of our human rights, but alas this basic legal right to justice is denied. Until all the gaps for Stolen Generations are filled, the grief and trauma will continue.
Source taken from: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=34986 [Accessed on 18 March 2013]
|
Share with your friends: |
