Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Survey: Should the US be involved in international crises?
Transcript of Survey: Should the US be involved in international crises?
Historical Context Summary
Hypothesis: We thought that, after 9/11, people would prefer the US to not get involved in international crises.
Did the events of 9/11 change your opinion about the US's involvement with foreign affairs? (yes or no)
The French Revolution
Should the US get involved
in international crises?
On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you be to donate to a non-profit organization that provides support for countries in need? (one being least likely, ten being most likely)
Which of the following would you prefer the US to do when it comes to international crises?
Due to the inability to decide, George Washington introduced the Neutrality Proclamation.
How strongly do you agree with the following statement? "The US should get involved in international crises." And why?
The British expected help due to the amount of trade it has with the USA.
France expected help due to the alliance they had with USA and in a sense, this somewhat relates to the American Revolution.
Thank you for your time!!!
Basically proclaimed neutrality to France and the British.
Washington left office in 1797
We researched the following sources that contained:
their thoughts on foreign affairs after the event of 9/11
Problems We Faced
During Our Survey
1) Language Barrier
2) Declined by Teachers
3) Declined By Strangers
balls of fury
My nose has hairs
this is my eye
What it led to for the USA
There were ups and downs from the neutrality.
The French starting stealing U.S. ships to prevent trade with Britain.
survey team: who's doing what...
Shannon: problems+ 4a
Millie: overall survey results
Eileen: question 4 + 4c
Nadine: question 3
Cathy: question 1
Kathryn: question 2+4b
John Adams prefers to settles thing with a talk thus leading to him sending Elbridge Gerry, Charles Pinckney, and John Marshall
What is your reason?
Three French agents (refered later as XYZ) soon then confronted them and would only agree to let them talk with the French minister of foreign affairs if they loan France $10 million and bribe the minister with $250,000
1) Most people were willing to donate.
2) For the most part, 9/11 affected their opinions.
The Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts
3) People thought it was better to wait for a request for help.
Why people agreed/strongly agreed:
4) There was a numerous amount of people who agreed with the statement.
plenty of resources
to promote democracies
to help countries that are getting harmed by other countries
helping other countries creates allies
We should help if it involves casualties
powerful country that is able to help others
Why people were neutral:
Unless there's a benefit for us, we shouldn't get involved
At times, it's necessary, but at other times, it's not
We have ourselves to worry about too
Depends on which country and what kind of crisis
Why people disagreed/strongly disagreed:
We ourselves have problems, especially economic
We should only get involved if it has to do with us
Sometimes we don't exactly "help"
people's opinions on US international crises
a) get involved right away
b) wait for a request to help
c) not get involved at all
The Embargo Act affected the presidency of 1808
The Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 replaces the Embargo Act
shouldn't seem uncaring
How this caused controvery for whether or not the United States should get involved in international crises
dont hate me cuz im beautiful