Current Events Lesson I decided to set aside an entire 45-minute class period in my Honors World History course to discuss

the Crimean Peninsula Crisis. Admittedly, the lesson was somewhat of a spur of the moment decision and probably wasnt connected to the course content as well as it should have been, but nevertheless, I thought it was an important topic to discuss and that it provided a forum to discuss many questions, themes, issues, and considerations that are present throughout the study of the social sciences. The format of the lesson, if you can even really call it that, was extremely flexible and rather unstructured. I held a class wide discussion with me posing questions to students, students posing questions to me, and us working through them as a class. Prior to the discussion, I showed students a short news clip to provide them with an update on the crisis and I offered them a short description of the events that had transpired in the Ukraine and Crimea prior to the referendum for the annexation of Crimea by Russia. My primary goal for the discussion was to introduce students to a very important and current international event and have them begin to think about it critically from the perspectives of the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and the different peoples that inhabit the Crimean Peninsula and Eastern Europe. I attempted to connect the event with our study of the First World War, particularly the force of nationalism. We discussed nationalism as one of the primary forces that led to the outbreak of WWI and I wanted students to connect the nationalism present in the Balkans with the clash of Ukrainian nationalism and Russian nationalism that were coming to a head in Crimea. I also posed the question to students if they believed that the United States should get involved in the Crimean Crisis and why or why not? Many students were of the mind that the United States should keep its hands out

of the matter, citing past instances of American interference that had resulted in fiasco, disaster, and embarrassment. On the other hand, a few students believed that it was the United States duty to prevent any real or perceived Russian aggression. Having discussed the policy of isolationism the United States had adopted for the majority of the First World War, particularly their stance in regard to the Armenian Genocide, I asked students to consider consequences of isolationism and then reconsider their stances towards action or non-action. I made it known to students that many ethnic minorities in the Crimean peninsula, the Tartars in particular, opposed the annexation by Russia, fearing ethnic persecution similar to that which they experienced under Russian control in the past. Did these peoples fears and opposition justify the U.S. stepping in? If not, at what point should the United States become involved should aggression continue? Having just discussed the Frist World War, it was important for student to consider the potential for a similar conflict erupting from this crisis and thus understanding the gravity of decisions that the nations involved or impacted must make. Another matter I asked students to consider was whether the Crimean peoples referendum and overwhelming decision to become a part of Russia was an expression of their self-determination, a concept championed by Woodrow Wilson at the conclusion of the Frist World War. If the Crimean people wished to leave the Ukraine and join Russia was that their sovereign right? What if everyone in Crimea didnt agree, despite a majority ruling? If the Tartars disagreed with the annexation should it be allowed? Should the entire country of Ukraine have a say in such a decision for it to hold any weight? Was the referendum truly democratic considering the presence of Russian troops in the peninsula at the time? I had students consider the influence that military presence might have on a

democratic vote. In a later lesson I was able to connect this to Germanys annexation of Austria and a similar referendum held after the German military invasion. Many students insisted that it wasnt significant that Crimea would shift from Ukrainian control to Russian control. What did it matter they asked, the peninsula wouldnt move, the people would continue to live where they always had, it wouldnt really make a difference. In response, I implored them to consider the vast differences that might exist between countries systems of government and consequently, peoples individual rights, political rights, quality of life, etc. I wanted students to see that many things might change for the people of Crimea should they be annexed by Russia. I also offered a Russian perspective. Historically, Crimea had been a part of the Soviet Union and only in the last 20 years had become part of the Ukraine. Many Crimean people felt closer ties with Russia than Ukraine and considered themselves ethnically Russian. Some of these ethnic Russians even felt threatened by the new Ukrainian government that had replaced Viktor Yanukovych. If Crimeans wanted to join Russia the peninsula itself become part of Russian territory or should those people be expected to immigrate to Russia? What issues do individuals face with emigration? I dont think we ever reached any definitive solutions to any of these questions and that was largely the point. The most important thing was to show students the importance of being informed and the importance of considering the gravity of such situations, considering multiple perspectives, and using prior knowledge to help discern current events. Rarely are things black and white and the events in the Ukraine and Crimea are an excellent example of this ambiguity. Students were clearly engaged in the discussion, which is to be expected with any potentially controversial subject. Students were eager to

give their thoughts, opinions, feelings, emotions, relevant experiences, and doubts around the issues raised. I think I did a reasonable job introducing students to different perspectives, ideas, considerations, and issues that they might not have entertained otherwise. I did my best to allow students the opportunity to present differing opinions in an open forum in which their peers were expected to be respectful at all times. Students were able to understand connections with historical parallels we had already discussed. I think students walked away more informed, more interested and concerned about current events, with new ideas, new questions, new considerations, and having engaged in constructive thought and discussion as a learning community. Upon reflection, it was often the same handful of students that were participating in discussion and I could have achieved more student participation if I had called on different students to voice their opinions or questions, or at least have offered them the opportunity. My hope was that students would begin to think as an informed citizen should, as a responsible government official should, as any global citizen must. These questions are difficult and I made it clear to students that I didnt have the answers, but nevertheless, they were issues that must be considered. I encouraged students to do further research on the Crimean Crisis and do their best to stay informed on global and domestic issues.