document_title: Foreign policy of the United States

question_text: what idea was used to justify u.s. foreign policy during the cold war era

question_tokens: what idea was used to justify u.s. foreign policy during the cold war era

text: Foreign policy of the United States

text: Powers of the President[edit]

text: Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President of the United States negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces. Both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The United States Secretary of State acts similarly to a foreign minister and under Executive leadership is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

text: Powers of the Congress[edit]

text: Congress is the only branch of government that has the authority to declare war. Furthermore, Congress writes the civilian and military budget, thus has vast power in military action and foreign aid. Congress also has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.[4]

text: Historical overview[edit]

text: The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemony during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century.[5] Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations.[6]

text: Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address; these included among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations. These policies became the basis of the Federalist Party in the 1790s. But the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored France in the 1790s, declaring the War of 1812 on Britain. After the 1778 alliance with France, the U.S. did not sign another permanent treaty until the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by Presidential 'doctrines', named for them. Initially these were uncommon events, but since WWII, these have been made by most presidents.

text: Jeffersonians vigorously opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801.[7]

text: Despite two wars with European Powers—the War of 1812 and the 1898 Spanish–American War—American foreign policy was peaceful and marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade during the 19th century.  The 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled the nation's geographical area; Spain ceded the territory of Florida in 1819; annexation brought in the independent Texas Republic in 1845; a war with Mexico in 1848 added California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. The U.S. bought Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, and it annexed the independent Republic of Hawaii in 1898. Victory over Spain in 1898 brought the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, as well as oversight of Cuba. The short experiment in imperialism ended by 1908, as the U.S. turned its attention to the Panama Canal and the stabilization of regions to its south, including Mexico.

text: 20th century[edit]

text: World War I[edit]

text: The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which Allied powers, along with the United States, defeated their enemies and through this participation the United States increased its international reputation. President Wilson's Fourteen Points was developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism so as to end any wars. It became the basis of the German Armistice (which amounted to a military surrender) and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the League of Nations, which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States followed an independent course, and succeeded in a program of naval disarmament, and refunding the German economy. Operating outside the League it became a dominant player in diplomatic affairs. New York became the financial capital of the world,[8] but the Wall Street Crash of 1929 hurled the Western industrialized world into the Great Depression. American trade policy relied on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s.

text: World War II[edit]

text: The United States adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but then President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved toward strong support of the Allies in their wars against Germany and Japan. As a result of intense internal debate, the national policy was one of becoming the Arsenal of Democracy, that is financing and equipping the Allied armies without sending American combat soldiers. Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which ought to be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from want and fear. Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-war world among potential allies at the Atlantic Conference; specific points were included to correct earlier failures, which became a step toward the United Nations. American policy was to threaten Japan, to force it out of China, and to prevent its attacking the Soviet Union. However, Japan reacted by an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of the loans given to allies in World War I, the United States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000. Working closely with Winston Churchill of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his forces into the Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally into Europe starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans. The American economy roared forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes, ships, tanks, munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. Much of the American war effort went to strategic bombers, which flattened the cities of Japan and Germany.

text: Cold War[edit]

text: After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant non-colonial economic power with broad influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. Almost immediately, however, the world witnessed division into broad two camps during the Cold War; one side was led by the U.S. and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the two superpowers. A policy of containment was adopted to limit Soviet expansion, and a series of proxy wars were fought with mixed results. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation and other former Soviet states.

text: In domestic politics, foreign policy is not usually a central issue. In 1945–1970 the Democratic Party took a strong anti-Communist line and supported wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then the party split with a strong, "dovish", pacifist element (typified by 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern).  Many "hawks", advocates for war, joined the Neoconservative movement and started supporting the Republicans—especially Reagan—based on foreign policy.[9] Meanwhile, down to 1952 the Republican Party was split between an isolationist wing, based in the Midwest and led by Senator Robert A. Taft, and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely on foreign policy grounds. Since then the Republicans have been characterized by a hawkish and intense American nationalism, and strong opposition to Communism, and strong support for Israel.[10]

text: 21st century[edit]

text: In the 21st century, U.S. influence remains strong but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of economic output compared to rising nations such as China, India, Russia, and the newly consolidated European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the specter of nuclear terrorism. Foreign policy analysts Hachigian and Sutphen in their book The Next American Century suggest all five powers have similar vested interests in stability and terrorism prevention and trade; if they can find common ground, then the next decades may be marked by peaceful growth and prosperity.[11]

text: In 2017 diplomats from other countries developed new tactics to deal with President Donald Trump.  The New York Times reported on the eve of his first foreign trip as president:

text: Trump has numerous aides giving advice on foreign policy. The chief diplomat was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.  His major foreign policy positions, which sometimes are at odds with Trump, include:

text: Law[edit]

text: In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:

text:
Treaties are formal written agreements specified by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution. The President makes a treaty with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. For example, President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was rejected by the Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently made separate agreements with different nations. While most international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty, the U.S. sense of the term is more restricted. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.
Executive agreements are made by the President—in the exercise of his Constitutional executive powers—alone.
Congressional-executive agreements are made by the President and Congress. A majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation after it is signed by the president. The Constitution does not expressly state that these agreements are allowed, and constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they are unconstitutional.[14]

text: In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as distinct. Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterward. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if this is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including Supreme Court decisions in Paquete Habana v. the United States (1900), and Reid v. Covert (1957), as well as a lower court ruling n Garcia-Mir v. Meese (1986). Further, the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to rule a treaty as void by declaring it "unconstitutional", although as of 2011, it has never exercised this power.[citation needed]

text: The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Generally, when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, as a result of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says, in effect, that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, then the U.S. legally can't abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.

text: International agreements[edit]

text: The United States has ratified and participates in many other multilateral treaties, including arms control treaties (especially with the Soviet Union), human rights treaties, environmental protocols, and free trade agreements.

text: Economic and general government[edit]

text: The United States is a founding member of the United Nations and most of its specialized agencies, notably including the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund.  The U.S. has at times has withheld payment of dues due to disagreements with the UN.

text: The United States is also member of:

text:
Organization of American States
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
NAFTA, the regional trade bloc with Canada and Mexico
World Trade Organization
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
Group of Seven (G7)
World Customs Organization

text: Freely Associated States[edit]

text: After it captured the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986 (1994 for Palau).  The Northern Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory (part of the United States), while Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau became independent countries.  Each has signed a Compact of Free Association that gives the United States exclusive military access in return for U.S. defense protection and conduct of military foreign affairs (except the declaration of war) and a few billion dollars of aid.  These agreements also generally allow citizens of these countries to live and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provide for largely free trade.  The federal government also grants access to services from domestic agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Weather Service, the United States Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and U.S. representation to the International Frequency Registration Board of the International Telecommunication Union.

text: Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements[edit]

text: The United States notably does not participate in various international agreements adhered to by almost all other industrialized countries, by almost all the countries of the Americas, or by almost all other countries in the world.  With a large population and economy, on a practical level this can undermine the effect of certain agreements,[15][16] or give other countries a precedent to cite for non-participation in various agreements.[17]

text: In some cases the arguments against participation include that the United States should maximize its sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create a basis for lawsuits that would treat American citizens unfairly.[18]  In other cases, the debate became involved in domestic political issues, such as gun control, climate change, and the death penalty.

text: Examples include:

text:
Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations covenant (in force 1920–45, signed but not ratified)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (took effect in 1976, ratified with substantial reservations)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (took effect in 1976, signed but not ratified)
American Convention on Human Rights (took effect in 1978)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (took effect in 1981, signed but not ratified)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (took effect in 1990, signed but not ratified)
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (took effect in 1994)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (signed in 1996 but never ratified and never took effect)
Mine Ban Treaty (took effect in 1999)
International Criminal Court (took effect in 2002)
Kyoto Protocol (in force 2005–12, signed but not ratified)
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (took effect in 2006)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (took effect in 2008, signed but not ratified)
Convention on Cluster Munitions (took effect in 2010)
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (took effect in 2010)
Arms Trade Treaty (took effect in 2014)
Other human rights treaties

text: Hub and spoke vs multilateral[edit]

text: While America's relationships with Europe have tended to be in terms of multilateral frameworks, such as NATO, America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a "hub and spoke" model using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States and do not collaborate with each other.[19]  On May 30, 2009, at the Shangri-La Dialogue Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc arrangements in the area.[20] However, in 2011 Gates said that the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation," for building multilateral cooperation.[21]

text: Oil[edit]

text: Persian Gulf[edit]

text: As of 2014, the U.S. currently produces about 66% of the oil that it consumes.[22] While its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for increased energy independence from oil exporting countries such as OPEC.[23] Former U.S. President George W. Bush identified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security concern".[24]

text:
Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the
Persian Gulf.[25][26] Despite its distance, the Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II. Petroleum is of central importance to modern armies, and the United States—as the world's leading oil producer at that time—supplied most of the oil for the Allied armies. Many U.S. strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the U.S. oil supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil reserves.[27]

text: The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the Cold War. Three Cold War United States Presidential doctrines—the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine—played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its "national interests" in the Persian Gulf region.[28] Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine", which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War.[29] Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.[30][31][32][33]

text: Canada[edit]

text: Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.[34]

text: Africa[edit]

text: In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.[35]

text: Foreign aid[edit]

text: Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget, which is $49 billion in all for 2014.[36]  Aid is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (for example, contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund).[37]

text: In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor ($23 billion in 2014).[36]  The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid. In addition many private agencies, churches and philanthropies provide aid.

text: Although the United States is the largest donor in absolute dollar terms, it is actually ranked 19 out of 27 countries on the Commitment to Development Index. The CDI ranks the 27 richest donor countries on their policies that affect the developing world. In the aid component the United States is penalized for low net aid volume as a share of the economy, a large share of tied or partially tied aid, and a large share of aid given to less poor and relatively undemocratic governments.

text: Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting foreign aid much more than conservatives do.[38]

text: Military[edit]

text: As of 2016, the United States is actively conducting military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including in areas of fighting in the Syrian Civil War and Yemeni Civil War.  The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base holds what the federal government considers unlawful combatants from these ongoing activities, and has been a controversial issue in foreign relations, domestic politics, and Cuba–United States relations.  Other major U.S. military concerns include stability in Afghanistan and Iraq after the recent invasions of those countries, and Russian military activity in Ukraine.

text: Mutual defense agreements[edit]

text: The United States is a founding member of NATO, an alliance of 29 North American and European nations formed to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.  Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power.  The United States itself was the first country to invoke the mutual defense provisions of the alliance, in response to the September 11 attacks.

text: The United States also has mutual military defense treaties with:[39]

text:
Australia and New Zealand
Japan
South Korea
Philippines
Thailand, with other states formerly in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization
Most countries in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, through the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

text: The United States has responsibility for the defense of the three Compact of Free Association states: Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.

text: Other allies and multilateral organizations[edit]

text: In 1989, the United States also granted five nations the major non-NATO ally status (MNNA), and additions by later presidents have brought the list to 28 nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

text: and lesser agreements with:

text:
Taiwan
Israel
Saudi Arabia

text: The U.S. participates in various military-related multi-lateral organizations, including:

text:
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
International Atomic Energy Agency

text: The U.S. also operates hundreds of military bases around the world.

text: Unilateral vs. multilateral military actions[edit]

text: The United States has undertaken unilateral and multilateral military operations throughout its history (see Timeline of United States military operations).  In the post-World War II era, the country has had permanent membership and veto power in the United Nations Security Council, allowing it to undertake any military action without formal Security Council opposition.  With vast military expenditures, the United States is known as the sole remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The U.S. contributes a relatively small number of personnel for United Nations peacekeeping operations.  It sometimes acts through NATO, as with the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and ISAF in Afghanistan, but often acts unilaterally or in ad-hoc coalitions as with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

text: The United Nations Charter requires that military operations be either for self-defense or affirmatively approved by the Security Council.  Though many of their operations have followed these rules, the United States and NATO have been accused of committing crimes against peace in international law, for example in the 1999 Yugoslavia and 2003 Iraq operations.

text: Aid[edit]

text: The U.S. provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia.[40] Since 9/11, Pakistan has received approximately $11.5 billion in direct military aid.[41]

text: As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries.[42]

text: Estimated U.S. foreign military financing and aid by recipient for 2010:

text:
Recipient
Military aid 2010 (USD Billions)

 Iraq
6.50

 Afghanistan
5.60[43]

 Israel
2.75[44]

 Egypt
1.75[45]

 Pakistan
1.60[46]

 Colombia
.834[47]

 Jordan
.300[48]

 Palestinian Authority
.100[45]

 Yemen
.070

text: According to a 2016 report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. topped the market in global weapon sales for 2015, with $40 billion sold. The largest buyers were Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.[49]

text: Missile defense[edit]

text: The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983[50] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles,[51] later dubbed "Star Wars".[52] The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today.[53]

text: In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system[54] (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan).[55] According to press reports the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree)[56] to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.[57][58]

text: Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia's border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.[59][60] In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.[61] Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.[62]

text: On August 14, 2008, the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.[63] "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy, said.[54][64]

text: Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, argue in Foreign Affairs that U.S. missile defenses are designed to secure Washington's nuclear primacy and are chiefly directed at potential rivals, such as Russia and China. The authors note that Washington continues to eschew nuclear first strike and contend that deploying missile defenses "would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one; as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield":

text: If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal, if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.[65]

text: This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies. The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere. The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to "Field a missile defense system as a shield against accidental missile launches or limited missile strikes by 'international outlaws'" and also must "Find ways to integrate the 'new democracies' of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S.-led system". The National Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words. "This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still-classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs."[66]

text: Finally, Robert David English, writing in Foreign Affairs, observes that in addition to the deployment U.S. missile defenses, the DPG's second recommendation has also been proceeding on course. "Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests."[67]

text: Exporting democracy[edit]

text: In United States history, critics have charged that presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad.[68][69] Critics have also charged that the U.S. helped local militaries overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and in other instances. Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations.[70] Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."[71][72] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[70] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[73]

text: Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy[edit]

text: Professor Paul W. Drake argued that the U.S. first attempted to export democracy in Latin America through intervention from 1912 to 1932. Drake argued that this was contradictory because international law defines intervention as "dictatorial interference in the affairs of another state for the purpose of altering the condition of things." The study suggested that efforts to promote democracy failed because democracy needs to develop out of internal conditions, and can not be forcibly imposed. There was disagreement about what constituted democracy; Drake suggested American leaders sometimes defined democracy in a narrow sense of a nation having elections; Drake suggested a broader understanding was needed. Further, there was disagreement about what constituted a "rebellion"; Drake saw a pattern in which the U.S. State Department disapproved of any type of rebellion, even so-called "revolutions", and in some instances rebellions against dictatorships.[74] Historian Walter LaFeber stated, "The world's leading revolutionary nation (the U.S.) in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century."[75]

text: Mesquita and Downs evaluated 35 U.S. interventions from 1945 to 2004 and concluded that in only one case, Colombia, did a "full fledged, stable democracy" develop within ten years following the intervention.[76] Samia Amin Pei argued that nation building in developed countries usually unravelled four to six years after American intervention ended. Pei, based on study of a database on worldwide democracies called Polity, agreed with Mesquita and Downs that U.S. intervention efforts usually don't produce real democracies, and that most cases result in greater authoritarianism after ten years.[77]

text: Professor Joshua Muravchik argued U.S. occupation was critical for Axis power democratization after World War II, but America's failure to encourage democracy in the third world "prove ... that U.S. military occupation is not a sufficient condition to make a country democratic."[78][79] The success of democracy in former Axis countries such as Italy were seen as a result of high national per-capita income, although U.S. protection was seen as a key to stabilization and important for encouraging the transition to democracy. Steven Krasner agreed that there was a link between wealth and democracy; when per-capita incomes of $6,000 were achieved in a democracy, there was little chance of that country ever reverting to an autocracy, according to an analysis of his research in the Los Angeles Times.[80]

text: Opinion that U.S. intervention has mixed results[edit]

text: Tures examined 228 cases of American intervention from 1973 to 2005, using Freedom House data. A plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy. In 69 instances, the country became less democratic after the intervention. In the remaining 63 cases, a country became more democratic.[70] However this does not take into account the direction the country would have gone with no U.S. intervention.

text: Opinion that U.S. intervention effectively exports democracy[edit]

text: Hermann and Kegley found that American military interventions designed to protect or promote democracy increased freedom in those countries.[73] Peceny argued that the democracies created after military intervention are still closer to an autocracy than a democracy, quoting Przeworski "while some democracies are more democratic than others, unless offices are contested, no regime should be considered democratic."[81] Therefore, Peceny concludes, it is difficult to know from the Hermann and Kegley study whether U.S. intervention has only produced less repressive autocratic governments or genuine democracies.[82]

text: Peceny stated that the United States attempted to export democracy in 33 of its 93 20th-century military interventions.[83] Peceny argued that proliberal policies after military intervention had a positive impact on democracy.[84]

text: Global opinion[edit]

text:
A global survey done by Pewglobal indicated that at (as of 2014) least 33 surveyed countries have a positive view (50% or above) of the United States. With the top ten most positive countries being Philippines (92%), Israel (84%), South Korea (82%), Kenya (80%), El Salvador (80%), Italy (78%), Ghana (77%), Vietnam (76%), Bangladesh (76%), and Tanzania (75%). While 10 surveyed countries have the most negative view (Below 50%) of the United States. With the countries being Egypt (10%), Jordan (12%), Pakistan (14%), Turkey (19%), Russia (23%), Palestinian Territories (30%), Greece (34%), Argentina (36%), Lebanon (41%), Tunisia (42%). Americans' own view of the United States was viewed at 84%.[85]
International opinion about the US has often changed with different executive administrations. For example in 2009, the French public favored the United States when President Barack Obama (75% favorable) replaced President George W. Bush (42%). After President Donald Trump took the helm in 2017, French public opinion about the US fell from 63% to 46%. These trends were also seen in other European countries.[86]

text: Covert actions[edit]

text:
Covert United States involvement in regime change

1949 Syrian coup d'état

1949–1953 Albania

1953 Iranian coup d'état

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

1956–57 Syria crisis

1957–58 Indonesian rebellion

1959–2000 Cuba, assassination attempts on Fidel Castro

1959 Cambodian "Bangkok Plot"

1960 Congo coup

1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion

1961 Cuba, Operation Mongoose

1961 Dominican Republic

1963 South Vietnamese coup

1964 Bolivian coup d'état

1964 Brazilian coup d'état

1966 Ghana coup d'état

1971 Bolivian coup d'état

1970–73 Chile

1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone

1980–92 Angola, UNITA

1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras

1982 Chad

1996 Iraq coup attempt

2000 Yugoslavia

2004 Haiti

2011–2017 Syria, Timber Sycamore
viewtalkedit

text: United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to the United States. According to J. Dana Stuster, writing in Foreign Policy, there are seven "confirmed cases" where the U.S.—acting principally through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but sometimes with the support of other parts of the U.S. government, including the Navy and State Department—covertly assisted in the overthrow of a foreign government: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, the Dominican Republic in 1961, South Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973. Stuster states that this list excludes "U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts" such as those directed against Cuba's Fidel Castro, as well as instances where U.S. involvement has been alleged but not proven (such as Syria in 1949).[87]

text: In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, initiated Operation Ajax against the Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This had the effect of restoring and strengthening the authoritarian monarchical reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[88] In 1957, the CIA and Israeli Mossad aided the Iranian government in establishing its intelligence service, SAVAK, later blamed for the torture and execution of the regime's opponents.[89][90]

text: A year later, in Operation PBSUCCESS, the CIA assisted the local military in toppling the democratically elected left-wing government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala and installing the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. The United Fruit Company lobbied for Árbenz overthrow as his land reforms jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long civil war which claimed the lives of an estimated 200,000 people (42,275 individual cases have been documented), mostly through 626 massacres against the Maya population perpetrated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military.[91][92][93][94] An independent Historical Clarification Commission found that U.S. corporations and government officials "exercised pressure to maintain the country's archaic and unjust socio-economic structure,"[92] and that U.S. military assistance had a "significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation."[95]

text: During the massacre of at least 500,000 alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia, U.S. government officials encouraged and applauded the mass killings while providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military which helped facilitate them.[96][97][98][99][100] This included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000 names of suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were subsequently killed in the massacres.[101][102][103][104] In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the publication of the State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, which documents the U.S. role in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI.[100][105][106] In July 2016,  an international panel of judges ruled the killings constitute crimes against humanity, and that the US, along with other Western governments, were complicit in these crimes.[107]

text: In 1970, the CIA worked with coup-plotters in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General René Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election of Salvador Allende. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later. The CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.[108][109]

text: Influencing foreign elections[edit]

text: According to one peer-reviewed study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36.[110][111]

text: Human rights[edit]

text: Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy.[112] Congress took the lead in the 1970s.[113] Following the Vietnam War, the feeling that U.S. foreign policy had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by Senator Donald M. Fraser (D, MI), leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, in criticizing Republican Foreign Policy under the Nixon administration. In the early 1970s, Congress concluded the Vietnam War and passed the War Powers Act. As "part of a growing assertiveness by Congress about many aspects of Foreign Policy,"[114] Human Rights concerns became a battleground between the Legislative and the Executive branches in the formulation of foreign policy. David Forsythe points to three specific, early examples of Congress interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:

text:
Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensured assistance through international financial institutions would be limited to countries "other than those whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."[114]
Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."[114]
Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1978: "No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."[114]

tag: ol

text: These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign policy towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and South Africa. The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the Cold War required placing regional security in favor of U.S. interests over any behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive regimes.[113] Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union.[116] John Henry Coatsworth, a historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990.[117] W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler" of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the region's worst tendencies."[118]

text: On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries.[119] He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays,[120] joining other western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.[121]

text: In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, both American citizens, shortly after the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.[122]

text: War on Drugs[edit]

text: United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts date back to at least 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement that prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries.

text: Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005,[123] the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous 12 months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

text: Criticism[edit]

text: Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel. Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that the U.S. presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad.[68][69] Critics also point to declassified records which indicate that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited more than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.[124][125]

text: The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human rights, such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile,[126] Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay,[127] Efraín Ríos Montt of Guatemala,[128] Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina,[129] Hissène Habré of Chad[130][131] Yahya Khan of Pakistan[132] and Suharto of Indonesia.[99][103] Critics have also accused the United States of facilitating and supporting state terrorism in the Global South during the Cold War, such as Operation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America.[133][134][127][135]

text: Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led airstrikes and targeted killings by drones which have in some cases resulted in collateral damage of civilian populations.[136][137] In early 2017, the U.S. faced criticism from some scholars, activists and media outlets for dropping 26,171 bombs on seven different countries throughout 2016: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.[138][139][140] The U.S. has been accused of complicity in war crimes for backing the Saudi Arabian-led intervention into the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present), which has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, including a cholera outbreak and millions facing starvation.[141][142][143]

text: Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations.[70] Some scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive."[71][72] Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results,[70] and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.[73] A 2013 global poll in 68 countries with 66,000 respondents by Win/Gallup found that the U.S. is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace.[144][145][146]

text: Support[edit]

text: Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the 'realist' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.[147][148]

text: Many democracies have voluntary military ties with United States. See NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.[149][150]

text: Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.[151]

text: Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[152][153] Media may be biased against the U.S. regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that The New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[154][155] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media.

text: Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all the human rights violations in nations they have supported. He writes that it is generally agreed that Guatemala was the worst of the US-backed regimes during the Cold War. However, the U.S. cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War.[148] The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.[156]

text: Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health."[157] According to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other."[158] In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken political reforms.[159] Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world".[160]

text: The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools [161] Examples of these tools are as follows:

text:
A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Advancing Freedom and Democracy",[162] issued in compliance with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law).[163]
A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." [164]
In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards." [165]
The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.[166]
The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[167]
The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan), which is mostly funded by the U.S. Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.


document_title: World of Dance

question_text: what does upper mean in world of dance

question_tokens: what does upper mean in world of dance

root

text: World of Dance

text: World of Dance Competitions[edit]

text: The first World of Dance competition was held in 2008. Since then, the brand has expanded to competitions in more than 25 countries. Each year, World of Dance Qualifier events are held around the world (40 internationally, 15 in the U.S.), bringing together street and urban dance crews to compete for two titles: winner of the Upper Division (for 18 years and older) and winner of the Youth Division (17 years old or younger). The winners of each category are invited to compete at World of Dance Finals event, where they compete for the world title. National championship winners are selected for international dance championship.National dance championship was started in the year 2106.This is conducted every alternative year.In the year 2018,WOD conducted national dance championship at which finals were held at secundrabad,HYDERABAD.This was won by VASHISHTA KULAKARNI registered his name as VASIJAANU from HYD,TELANGANA and MANISH from MUMBAI.As they won national dance championship they were selected for INTERNATIONAL DANCE CHAMPIONSHIP conducted by WOD(World Of Dance).

tag: p

text: World of Dance competitions are notable for their scoring approach. Each competition is judged by a five-person panel, usually composed of dance celebrities, industry professionals, and influencers. Using an Olympic-style approach, competitors are judged according to five criteria: Performance, Technique, Choreography, Creativity, and Presentation. Each category is worth 20 points, for a total of 100 points. Once all judges have inputted their score, the highest and lowest scores are removed, and the final score is the average score of the remaining three. Those with a score above 85 move on to finals.

text: In addition to the competition, World of Dance events also include performances from industry talent (non-competing), dance crews, choreographers, and freestylers, as well as live battles, appearances by industry influences, music, live art, vendors, and more.

text: Notable World of Dance judges, performers, guests[edit]

text: World of Dance events feature the industry’s best as judges, performers, or guests, including many performers who have appeared in nationally televised dance competitions, such as World of Dance, So You Think You Can Dance, America’s Best Dance Crew (ABDC), and more. Notable WOD guests include all seven ABDC champions, JabbaWockeeZ, Super Cr3w, Quest Crew, We Are Heroes, Poreotics, I.aM.mE, and Electrolytes. Additional performers include 8 Flavahz, Kaba Modern, SoReal Cru, Phunk Phenomenon, Mos Wanted Crew, Instant Noodles, Gotham actress Camren Bicondova, Les Twins, Chachi Gonzales, Dytto, Ian Eastwood, Kaelynn Gobert-Harris, Black-ish star Miles Brown, SYTYCD Season 10 Male Winner Fik-Shun, and India's famous dance group/WOD winners Desi Hoppers, led by Shantanu Maheshwari, Nimit Kotian, and Macedon D'Mello.

text: World of Dance Television Show[edit]

text: NBC World of Dance is a 10-episode dance competition program produced by Universal Television Alternative Studio in association with Nuyorican Productions and World of Dance. Executive producing are Jennifer Lopez, Elaine Goldsmith-Thomas, Benny Medina, Kris Curry, Matilda Zoltowski, David Gonzalez and Matthew Everitt. The show features celebrity judges Jennifer Lopez, Derek Hough, Ne-Yo, and host/mentor Jenna Dewan-Tatum, along with 50 of the world’s best dancers and dance teams competing for a $1 million prize—the largest prize of any dance competition show.

text: As Lopez told the New York Times, “My whole goal with this show was to create an opportunity and a venue for dancers to actually be the stars,” Ms. Lopez said, and to get to do something they rarely have a chance to do: “really make some money.”

text: World of Dance contestants were picked from qualifying events around the nation and online submissions. Contestants are divided into three divisions:

text:
Junior: Any size act, 17 years old and under
Upper: Groups of 1-4, 18 and older
Team: Groups of 5+, 18 and older

tag: ul

text: In each episode, dancers compete before the judges and are scored according to World of Dane scoring criteria: Performance, Technique, Choreography, Creativity, and Presentation. Each category is worth 20 points, for a total of 100 points. The show consists of five rounds:

text:
The Qualifiers: In each round of the Qualifiers, the dance acts perform a 2-minute routine in front of the judges and a live audience. They are judged according to criteria, and only those who receive a combined total score of 80 or higher move forward.
The Duels: Acts are paired against each other, and the highest scoring act moves on to the next round. In each round of The Duels, two acts in the same division compete for a spot in the next round. In each division, the acts with the top qualifying scores choose their opponents, then both acts perform back-to-back, receiving feedback from the judges. After each performance, the judges score them. Unlike the Qualifiers, only the final combined total score for each act is shown. The act with the highest score at the end of the duel moves on to the next round; the other faces immediate elimination.
The Cut: In The Cut, the 15 remaining acts compete for two spots in each of their divisions.
Divisional Finals: Two acts in each division compete against each other, winners in each division move on to the next round.
World Finals: In the World Final, the final 3 acts, one from each division, compete to win the one million dollar prize.

text: The show premiered May 30, 2017 at 10/9 central on NBC, debuting to 9.8 million viewers. It was renewed for a second season in June 2017.

text: Season 1 Performers[edit]

text: Junior Division: 801 Squad, Alaman, Boys of Temecula, D'Angelo and Amanda, Diana Pombo, Eva Igo, ImmaBEAST, JJ & Joey, Kaeli and Brandon, KynTay, Mini ReQuest, The Lab, The Maya Boys, The Mihacevich Sisters, The POSSE.

text: Upper Division: Al Taw'am, DNA, Femme Fatale, Fik-Shun, Keone & Mari, Desi Hoppers, Kyle Van Newkirk, Les Twins, Luka & Jenalyn, Nick Daniels, Pasión, Quick Style, Slavek and Juliet, The Nitty Grittyz Trent Jeray, Vibration.

text: Team: Chapkis Dance Family, FUZE, Ian Eastwood and the Young Lions, Jabbawockeez. Kinjaz, Miami All Stars, NXT LVL, P.L.A.Y., ProdiJIG, Rhythmatic, Rouge, Royal Flux, Stroll Groove, Super Cr3w, Swing Latino, The Kingdom.

text: Judges[edit]

text: The judging lineup of Lopez, Hough, and Ne-Yo was announced in November 2016. The judges were selected both for their dance experience, as well as their passion for spotlighting dancers.

text: Meredith Ahr, President of Universal Television Alternative Studio, called them ““three of the most accomplished dancers of their generation.” Lopez told Entertainment Weekly, “We all love dance, we all are performers, and we all are competitive, which you have to be in this business. We come from different backgrounds, so we bring those sensibilities.”

text: Critical Reception[edit]

text: Marketed as “the biggest dance competition in the world,” the show garnered national attention, particularly for its wide style of performances and popular performers. Les Twins (Beyoncé’s former backup dancers) made headlines in USA Today, which wrote, "Although the audience was cheering along to Les Twins’ fierce moves the entire performance, their routine’s intense ending made judge Jennifer Lopez jump out of her seat in shock."[20]

text: Similarly, young contemporary dancer Diana Pombo’s first performance made Lopez tear up, while others like Luka & Jenalyn, Fik-Shun, and Nick Daniels also wowed the crowd.

text: As USA Today wrote, “What the show also has going for it is the sense of inclusion that you don’t always find on reality TV. The show celebrates the people and cultures represented on its stage, from an Asian-American dance team that takes its inspiration from martial arts to a young Colombian-American girl from Miami who pauses to tell “Miss JLo” that she’s her idol. She cried, Lopez cried, and you’ll probably cry, too.”

text: Events[edit]

text:
August 16, 2015, World of Dance Finals, Los Angeles Convention Center[1]
August 15, 2015, World of Dance Los Angeles, Los Angeles Convention Center[1]
July 13, 2015, World of Dance Vancouver, Croatian Cultural Centre[1]
May 30, 2015, World of Dance Orlando, Osceola Performing Arts Center and Expo[1]
May 23, 2015, World of Dance New Jersey, iPLAY AMERICA[1]
May 18, 2015, World of Dance Philippine Qualifier, UP Theater[1]
April 12, 2015, World of Dance Belgium Qualifier, Venue to be determined[1]
April 11, 2015, World of Dance Dallas, South Side Ballroom[1]
April 5, 2015 World of Dance France Qualifier, La Salle Du Summum de Grenoble[1]
March 21, 2015, World of Dance Anaheim, The Grove[1]
February 10, 2015, World of Dance Industry Awards, Avalon Hollywood[1]
January 25, 2015, World of Dance Montreal, Rialto Theatre Montreal[1]
December 20, 2014, World of Dance Las Vegas, Cashman Center[1]
December 14, 2014, World of Dance Hawaii, Blaisdell Concert Hall[1]
November 22, 2014, World of Dance Chicago, Copernicus Theater[1]
November 22, 2014: World of Dance Germany, Huxleys Neue Welt[1]
November 15, 2014: World of Dance Seattle, Highline Performing Arts Center[1]
November 2, 2014: World of Dance Boston, Back Bay Event Center[1]
October 19, 2014: World of Dance Netherlands, Dommelstraat 2[1]
October 18, 2014: World of Dance San Diego, California Center for the Arts[1]
October 4, 2014: World of Dance Toronto, Queen Elizabeth Theatre[1]
September 28, 2014: World of Dance London, Coronet London[1]
August 30, 2014: World of Dance Live, Universal Citywalk[1]
August 23, 2014: World of Dance Houston, Warehouse Live[1]
August 16, 2014: World of Dance Bay Area, Solano Fairgrounds[1]
April 26, 2014: World of Dance Dallas, South Side Ballroom[1]
April 19, 2014: World of Dance Orlando, Osceola Performing Arts Center and Expo[1]
April 12, 2014: World of Dance Los Angeles, Los Angeles Convention Center[1]
March 23, 2014: World of Dance Belgium, TRIX[1]
December 8, 2013: World of Dance Hawaii, Blaisdell Arena[1]
November 16, 2013: World of Dance San Diego, San Diego Concourse[1]
November 15, 2013: World of Dance Chicago, Copernicus Theater[1]
November 9, 2013: World of Dance New Jersey, Encore Event Center[1]
November 2, 2013: World of Dance Boston, Chevalier Theater[1]
October 12, 2013: World of Dance Toronto, Queen Elizabeth Theatre[1]
September 29, 2013: World of Dance Netherlands, DommelStraat 2[1]
September 7, 2013 World of Dance Seattle, Auburn Performing Arts[1]
August 31, 2013: World of Dance Live, Universal Studios Citywalk[1]
August 24, 2013: World of Dance Houston, Warehouse Live[1]
August 17, 2013: World of Dance Bay Area, Solano County Fairgrounds[1]
July 27, 2013: World of Dance Orlando, Osceola Performing Arts Center and Expo[1]
June 22, 2013: World of Dance Vancouver, Croatian Cultural Centre[1]
May 25, 2013: World of Dance New York, Terminal 5[1]
April 20, 2013: World of Dance Dallas, Palladium Ballroom[1]
April 6, 2013: World of Dance Los Angeles, Los Angeles Convention Center[1]
December 8, 2012: World of Dance Hawaii, Blaisdell Arena Honolulu, Hawaii[1]
November 17, 2012: World of Dance Chicago, Copernicus Theater[1]
November 10, 2012: World of Dance Boston, Chevalier Theater[1]
October 6, 2012: World of Dance San Diego, San Diego Concourse[1]
September 29, 2012: World of Dance Vancouver, Douglas College[1]
September 8, 2012: World of Dance Seattle, Auburn Performing Arts Center[1]
August 18, 2012: World of Dance San Francisco, Solano County Fairgrounds[1]
May 26, 2012: World of Dance New York, Harlem Armory[1]
May 20, 2012: World of Dance Toronto, Sound Academy[1]
April 21, 2012: World of Dance Dallas, Palladium Nightclub[1]
April 7, 2012: World of Dance Los Angeles, Los Angeles Convention Center[1]
March 10, 2012: Lifestyle Event “Beat Swap Meet” - one of the best urban events held downtown Los Angeles[2]
March 3, 2012: Battlefest 17, Inside Pulse New York City[3]
March 3, 2012: Urban Street Jam Event, Anaheim Convention Center - featured over 40 groups competing in Adult, Varsity and Junior Varsity sections[4]
February 19, 2012: 2nd Annual World of Dance Industry Awards, ICON Ultra Lounge
November 27, 2011: World of Dance Chicago, Chicago Theater Illinois Chicago[5]
November 5, 2011: World of Dance Boston, Chevalier Theater Boson, Massachusetts[6]
October 15, 2011: World of Dance San Diego Concourse[7]
September 18, 2011: World of Dance Toronto[8]
August 20, 2011: World of Dance – Solano County Fairgrounds[9]
April 2, 2011: World of Dance Los Angeles 2011, Los Angeles Convention Center - Hype took 1st place[10]
2011: World of Dance Seattle, B-boys Battle[11]

text: WOD 2012 Industry Awards[edit]

text:
Decade of Dance Award – Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo (Nappytabs) were recognized for their achievement and dedication to the hip-hop dance community.[12]
Best Junior Team Award – Chi-Town's Finest Breakers were honored as the Best Junior Team of the year.[13]
Teen Choreographer of the year – 16-year-old Chachi Gonzales was named Teen Choreographer of the Year.[14]
Team of the Year - Mos Wanted Crew was nominated for Team of the Year.[15]
January 29, 2012: Vibe 17 Dance Competition, UCI Bren Events Center[16]


document_title: Hatter (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

question_text: what time does the mad hatter have tea

question_tokens: what time does the mad hatter have tea

text: Fictional character biography[edit]

text: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland[edit]

text: The Hatter character, alongside all the other fictional beings, first appears in Lewis Carroll's 1865 novel Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. In it, the Hatter explains to Alice that he and the March Hare are always having tea because when he tried to sing for the foul-tempered Queen of Hearts, she sentenced him to death for "murdering the time", but he escapes decapitation. In retaliation, time (referred to as a "he" in the novel) halts himself in respect to the Hatter, keeping him and the March Hare stuck at 18:00 (or 6:00 pm) forever.

text: When Alice arrives at the tea party, the Hatter is characterised by switching places on the table at any given time, making short, personal remarks, asking unanswerable riddles and reciting nonsensical poetry, all of which eventually drives Alice away. The Hatter appears again as a witness at the Knave of Hearts' trial, where the Queen appears to recognise him as the singer she sentenced to death, and the King of Hearts also cautions him not to be nervous or he will have him "executed on the spot".

text: Through the Looking-Glass[edit]

text: The character also appears briefly in Carroll's 1871 Through the Looking-Glass, the sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, under the name "Hatta" - alongside the March Hare under the name "Haigha", which is pronounced "hare." Sir John Tenniel's illustration depicts Hatta as sipping from a teacup as he did in the original novel. Alice does not comment on whether Hatta is the Hatter of her earlier dream.

text: Characterization[edit]

text: Etymology[edit]

text: Mercury was used in the manufacturing of felt hats during the 19th century, causing a high rate of mercury poisoning in those working in the hat industry.[1] Mercury poisoning causes neurological damage, including slurred speech, memory loss, and tremors, which led to the phrase "mad as a hatter".[1] In the Victorian age, many workers in the textile industry, including hatters, often suffered from starvation and overwork, and were particularly prone to develop illnesses affecting the nervous system, such as tuberculosis, which is portrayed in novels like Alton Locke by Charles Kingsley and North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell, which Lewis Carroll had read. Many such workers were sent to Pauper Lunatic Asylums, which were supervised by Lunacy Commissioners such as Samuel Gaskell and Robert Wilfred Skeffington Lutwidge, Carroll's uncle. Carroll was familiar with the conditions at asylums and visited at least one, the Surrey County Asylum, himself, which treated patients with so-called non-restraint methods and occupied them, amongst others, in gardening, farming and hat-making.[2] Besides staging theatre plays, dances and other amusements, such asylums also held tea-parties.[3]

text: Appearance[edit]

text: The Hatter introduced in Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland wears a large top hat with a hatband reading "In this style 10/6". This is the hat's price tag, indicative of The Hatter's trade, and giving the price in pre-decimal British money as ten shillings and six pence (or half a guinea).

text: Personality[edit]

text: The Hatter and his tea party friend, the March Hare, are initially referred to as "both mad" by the distinctive Cheshire Cat. The first mention of both characters occurs in the sixth chapter of Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, titled "Pig and Pepper", in a conversation between the child protagonist Alice and the Cheshire Cat, when she asks "what sort of people live about here?" to which the cat replies "in that direction lives a Hatter, and in that direction, lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad!" Both then subsequently make their actual debuts in the seventh chapter of the same book, which is titled "A Mad Tea-Party".

text: Hat making was the main trade in Stockport where Carroll grew up, and it was not unusual then for hatters to appear disturbed or confused; many died early as a result of mercury poisoning. However, the Hatter does not exhibit the symptoms of mercury poisoning, which include excessive timidity, diffidence, increasing shyness, loss of self-confidence, anxiety, and a desire to remain unobserved and unobtrusive.[4]

text: Resemblance to Theophilus Carter[edit]

text: It has often been claimed that the Hatter's character may have been inspired by Theophilus Carter, an eccentric furniture dealer.[5][6] Carter was supposedly at one time a servitor at Christ Church, one of the University of Oxford's colleges.[7] This is not substantiated by university records.[7] He later owned a furniture shop, and became known as the "Mad Hatter" from his habit of standing in the door of his shop wearing a top hat.[5][6] Sir John Tenniel is reported to have come to Oxford especially to sketch him for his illustrations.[5] There is no evidence for this claim, however, in either Carroll's letters or diaries.[8]

text: The Hatter's riddle[edit]

text: In the chapter "A Mad Tea Party", the Hatter asks a much-noted riddle "why is a raven like a writing desk?" When Alice gives up trying to figure out why, the Hatter admits "I haven't the slightest idea!". Carroll originally intended the riddle to be without an answer, but after many requests from readers, he and others—including puzzle expert Sam Loyd—suggested possible answers; in his preface to the 1896 edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Carroll wrote:

text: Enquiries have been so often addressed to me, as to whether any answer to the Hatter's riddle can be imagined, that I may as well put on record here what seems to me to be a fairly appropriate answer, "because it can produce a few notes, though they are very flat; and it is nevar put with the wrong end in front!" This, however, is merely an afterthought; the riddle as originally invented had no answer at all.[9][a]

text: Loyd proposed a number of alternative solutions to the riddle, including "because Poe wrote on both" (alluding to Poe's 1845 narrative poem The Raven) and "because the notes for which they are noted are not noted for being musical notes".

text: American author Stephen King provides an alternative answer to the Hatter's riddle in his 1977 horror novel The Shining. Snowbound and isolated "ten thousand feet high" in the Rocky Mountains, the five-year-old son "Danny" hears whispers of the malign "voice of the [Overlook] hotel" inside his head, including this bit of mockery, "why is a raven like a writing desk? The higher the fewer, of course! Have another cup of tea!"

text: In other media[edit]

text: The Hatter has been featured in nearly every adaptation of Alice in Wonderland to date; he is usually the male lead. The character has been portrayed in film by Edward Everett Horton, Sir Robert Helpmann, Martin Short, Peter Cook, Anthony Newley, Ed Wynn, Andrew-Lee Potts, and Johnny Depp. In music videos, the Hatter has been portrayed by Tom Petty, Dero Goi, and Steven Tyler. He has also been portrayed on stage by Nikki Snelson and Katherine Shindle, and on television by John Robert Hoffman, Pip Donaghy and Sebastian Stan. In ballet adaptations, Steven McRae also portrayed him as a mad 'Tapper'.

text: Batman[edit]

text: The Mad Hatter (also referred to as "Jervis Tetch") is a supervillain and enemy of the Batman in DC comic books, making his first appearance in the October 1948 (#49) release of Batman. He is portrayed as a brilliant neurotechnician with considerable knowledge in how to dominate and control the human mind. He has also appeared in the Batman television series, animated series and various video games.

text: Disney[edit]

text: In the 1951 Walt Disney animated feature Alice in Wonderland, the Hatter appears as a short, hyperactive man with grey hair, a large nose and a comical voice. He was voiced by Ed Wynn in 1951, and by Corey Burton in his later appearances (Bonkers, House of Mouse). Alice stumbles upon the Hatter and the March Hare having an "un-birthday" party for themselves. The Hatter asks her the infamous riddle "why is a raven like a writing desk?", but when she tries to answer the Hatter and the March Hare think she is "stark raving mad" and the Hatter completely forgot that he even asked her the riddle.

text: Throughout the course of the film, the Hatter pulls numerous items out of his hat, such as cake and smaller hats. His personality is that of a child, angry one second, happy the next.

text: The Hatter and March Hare make a cameo appearance in a painting in the Tea Party Garden in the Kingdom Hearts video game and the Hatter is also a greetable character at the Disneyland Resort, Walt Disney World Resort, Tokyo Disney Resort, Disneyland Paris Resort and Hong Kong Disneyland. This version of the character was also a semi-regular on the Disney Afternoon series Bonkers and one of the guests in House of Mouse, where he even made a cameo appearance in one of the featured cartoon shorts.

text: 2010 film[edit]

text: The Hatter appears in Tim Burton's 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland portrayed by Johnny Depp and given the name Tarrant Hightopp.[10] In the film, the Hatter takes Alice toward the White Queen's castle and relates the terror of the Red Queen's reign while commenting that Alice is not the same as she once was. The Hatter subsequently helps Alice avoid capture by the Red Queen's guards by allowing himself to be seized instead. He is later saved from execution by the Cheshire Cat and calls for rebellion against the Red Queen. Near the end of the film, the Hatter unsuccessfully suggests to Alice that she could stay in Wonderland and consummate his feelings for her.

text: Critical reception to Johnny Depp's portrayal of the Hatter was generally positive. David Edelstein of New York Magazine remarked that while the elements of the character suggested by Depp don't entirely come together, "Depp brings an infectious summer-stock zest to everything he does."[11]Bill Goodykoontz of The Arizona Republic said that "Depp is exactly what you'd expect, which is a good thing. Gap-toothed and leering, at times he looks like Madonna after sticking a fork in a toaster. How he finds his characters is anybody's guess, a sort of thrift-store warehouse of eccentricities, it seems like. But it works."[12] Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly had a more mixed opinion and commented that Depp as the Hatter is "a fantastic image, but once Depp opens his mouth, what comes out is a noisome Scottish brogue that makes everything he says sound more or less the same. The character offers no captivatingly skewed bat-house psychology. There isn't much to him, really—he's just a smiling Johnny one-note with a secret hip-hop dance move—and so we start to react to him the way that Alice does to everything else: by wondering when he's going to stop making nonsense."[13] Kenneth Turan of Los Angeles Times stated that "there's no denying Depp's gifts and abilities, but this performance feels both indulgent and something we've all seen before."[14]

text: Wonderland: A New Alice[edit]

text: Frank Wildhorn composed the music to and co-wrote the music to Wonderland. In this adaption the Hatter is portrayed as the villain of the story, and Alice's alter-ego and is a mad woman who longs to be Queen. She was played by Nikki Snelson in the original Tampa, Florida production, and then by Kate Shindle in the Tampa/Houston Tour, and the production on Broadway.

text: SyFy's Alice[edit]

text: This Hatter is portrayed as a smuggler who starts off working as a double agent for the Queen of Hearts and the Wonderland Resistance in the story; over the course of the story, he begins to side more and more with the Resistance, and ends up falling in love with Alice as he helps her along the way.

text: American McGee's Alice[edit]

text: In the videogame American McGee's Alice, The Mad Hatter is portrayed as psychotic, literally gone "mad" and obsessed with time and clockworks, and considers himself to be a genius. He invents mechanical devices, often evidently using the bodies of living organisms for the base of his inventions, as he plans to do to all of Wonderland's inhabitants. He appears in Alice: Madness Returns in the same appearance, although this time, he requests Alice's help in retrieving his lost limbs from his former compatriots the March Hare and Dormouse.

text: The Looking Glass Wars[edit]

text: A spin-off of the traditional Alice in Wonderland story, Frank Beddor's The Looking Glass Wars features a character named Hatter Madigan, a member of an elite group of bodyguards known in Wonderland as the "Millinery" after the business of selling women's hats. He acts as the bodyguard of the rightful Queen, and as guide/guardian to the protagonist, Alyss Heart.

text: Alice in the Country of Hearts[edit]

text: The Japanese manga Alice in the Country of Hearts has been translated into English. The Hatter role is played by Blood Dupre, a crime boss and leader of a street gang called The Hatters, which controls one of the four territories of Wonderland.

text: Charisma Label[edit]

text: Sir John Tenniel's drawing of the Hatter, combined with a montage of other images from Alice in Wonderland, were used as a logo by Charisma Records from 1972 onwards.

text: Pandora Hearts[edit]

text: The Mad Hatter in Pandora Hearts manga series is a chain (creature from the Abyss) that was contracted by Xerxes Break. The hatter basically looks like a large top hat with flowery decorations (similar to Break's top hat) and a tattered cape. When summoned, it can destroy all chains and objects from the Abyss within a large area. T

text: Futurama[edit]

text: The TV series Futurama has a robot named Mad Hatterbot who is based off the Hatter. Seen only in the HAL Institute (an asylum for criminally insane robots) the Mad Hatterbot only says one line: "Change places!", which all in the room comply with when spoken. The price tag on his hat reads "5/3", a simplified form of the fraction 10/6. A minor character, he has been in the episodes "Insane in the Mainframe" and "Follow the Reader" as well as the film Futurama: Bender's Game.

text: Once Upon a Time[edit]

text:
Jefferson

Once Upon a Time character

First appearance
"Hat Trick" (1.17)

Last appearance
"The Doctor" (2.05)

Portrayed by
Sebastian Stan

Information

Nickname(s)
The Mad Hatter

Gender
Male

Occupation
Realm jumper
Hatter for the Queen of Hearts (formerly)

Family
Grace (daughter)

Significant other(s)
Priscilla[15] (wife, deceased)

Centric episodes

Season One
"Hat Trick"
Season Two
"The Doctor"

tag: table

text: Season 1[edit]

text: Season 2[edit]

text: Ever After High[edit]

text: In the Netflix episode "Spring Unsprung", the Mad Hatter makes an appearance as Madeline Hatter's father. In the 47-minute special, he runs the Mad Hatter's Tea Shoppe in the town of Bookend, not far from Maddie's school Ever After High. He also runs a shop by the same name in Wonderland, but it was abandoned after the Evil Queen (Raven Queen's mother) cast a curse upon the land.

text: Shrek: The Musical[edit]

text: The Mad Hatter plays a small role as a fairytale creature and has two lines including, "They ridiculed my hat" and "I smell like sauerkraut".


document_title: U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state

question_text: when did the american drinking age become 21

text: The alcohol laws of the United States regarding minimum age for purchase have changed over time. The history is given in the table below. Unless otherwise noted, if different alcohol categories have different minimum purchase ages, the age listed below is set at the lowest age given (e.g. if the purchase age is 18 for beer and 21 for wine or spirits, as was the case in several states, the age in the table will read as "18", not "21"). In addition, the purchase age is not necessarily the same as the minimum age for consumption of alcoholic beverages, although they have often been the same.

text: As one can see in the table below, there has been much volatility in the states' drinking ages since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Shortly after the ratification of the 21st amendment in December, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the Voting age at the time. Most of these limits remained constant until the early 1970s. From 1969 to 1976, some 30 states lowered their purchase ages, generally to 18. This was primarily because the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971 with the 26th amendment. A lot of states started to lower their minimum drinking age in response, most of this occurring in 1972 or 1973.[1][2][3] Twelve states kept their purchase ages at 21 since repeal of Prohibition and never changed them.

text: From 1976 to 1983, several states voluntarily raised their purchase ages to 19 (or, less commonly, 20 or 21), in part to combat drunk driving fatalities.[citation needed] In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10% of their federal highway funds. By mid-1988, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had raised their purchase ages to 21 (but not Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, see Additional Notes below). South Dakota and Wyoming were the final two states to comply with the age 21 mandate. The current drinking age of 21 remains a point of contention among many Americans, because of it being higher than the age of majority (18 in most states) and higher than the drinking ages of most other countries. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is also seen as a congressional sidestep of the tenth amendment. Although debates have not been highly publicized, a few states have proposed legislation to lower their drinking age,[4] while Guam has raised its drinking age to 21 in July 2010.[5]

text:
State
Pre-Prohibition
(prior to 1919)
Post-Prohibition
(after 1933)
1970s / 26th Amendment
(adopted in 1971)
1980s /
Drinking Age Act of 1984
21st century

Alabama
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21 (none with consent of parent)[6]
21
1975:
Lowered to 19[7]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (no one underage is allowed consumption Section 28-1)

Alaska
?
21[7]
1970:
Lowered to 19[9]
1984:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause (if born before January 1, 1965)[10][11]
21

Arizona
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 19[12][13]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Arkansas
Pre 1925:
None[7]
1925:
21[7]
21
21[14]
21[8]
21

California
Pre 1891:
Regulated by municipality/county (common age was 16)[15][16][17]
1891:
18 (statewide)[18]
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21 (except small amounts for religious ceremonies)

Colorado
None[11]
1945:
18: for beer
21: for wine and liquor[7]
18[19]
Raised to 21 in 1987[8]
21

Connecticut
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[20]
1982:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[21]
21 (exemptions: (1) a person over age eighteen who is an employee or permit holder under section 30-90a and who possesses alcoholic liquor in the course of such person’s employment or business, (2) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor on the order of a practicing physician, or (3) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor while accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse of the minor, who has attained the age of twenty-one. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state in violation of subsection (a) of section 52-571b.[22]

Delaware
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 20[13]
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

District of Columbia
?
18: for beer and wine[11]
21: for liquor[23][24]
18: for beer and wine[13][24]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause.[25][26]
21

Florida
?
18[7]
1980:
19[27]
1985:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause[27]
21[28]

Georgia
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1984:
Raised to 19[14]
1985:
Raised to 20[14]
1986:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Hawaii
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18[13]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Idaho
?
20: for beer[29][30]
21: for wine and liquor[11][31]
1972:
Lowered to 19 (all)[13][32]
1987:
Raised to 21 in 1987 (Apr 11) with grandfather clause[8][33]
21

Illinois
1872:
Age of majority
(none with written consent of parent)[34]
pre 1961: Age of majority 1961: Raised to 21[35]
1973:
Lowered to 19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[36]
1980:
Raised to 21[37]
21

Indiana
?
Post-1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Iowa
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 19 in 1972 (Jul 1)
1973:
Lowered to 18 in 1973 (Jul 1)
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Jul 1)[38]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Jul 1) with grandfather clause.[14][38]
21

Kansas
?
1949:
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV[14]
21: for beer and wine with 4% ABV or more[14]
21: for liquor[14][19]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (However, anyone under 21 may consume cereal malt beverages with parental supervision on their own property)

Kentucky
?
1938:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Louisiana
?
As of 1948:
18[13]
18[19]
1987:
Raised to 21 de jure in 1987,[8]
but de facto age was still 18 until 1995 due to a sale loophole.
1995:
De facto age raised to 21 in 1995 when loophole was closed.[39]
1996:
In 1996, briefly lowered by Louisiana Supreme Court to 18 until it reversed its decision, raising to 21 three months later.[40]
Other exceptions still remain.[41]
21 (Exceptions to state law include:[42]

For an established religious purpose;
When a person under twenty-one years of age is accompanied by a parent, spouse, or legal guardian twenty-one years of age or older;
For medical purposes when purchased as an over the counter medication, or when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or medical institution;
In a private residence, which shall include a residential dwelling and up to twenty contiguous acres, on which the dwelling is located, owned by the same person who owns the dwelling;
The sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful ownership of an establishment or to lawful employment of a person under twenty-one years of age by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of beverage alcohol.)

Maine
?
21[7]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1977:
Raised to 20[8][43]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Maryland
?
21[7]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[44][45]
1982:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause[8][46]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)

Massachusetts
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18
1979:
Raised to 20 in 1979 (Apr 16)[47][48][49]
Raised to 21 in 1985[8]
21

Michigan
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18 in 1972 (Jan 1)[50]
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Dec 3)[51][52]
1978:
Raised to 21 in 1978 (Dec 21), 18 days later.[8]
First state to raise age to 21 since it was lowered
21

Minnesota
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18 (June 1)
1976:
Raised to 19 (Sept 1)[53]
First state to raise age after lowering.
1986:
Raised to 21[54]
21

Mississippi
?
1966:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
(alcohol not legalized until 1966)
18[19]
Raised to 21 in 1986[8]
21

Missouri
?
1945:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

Montana
?
21[11]
1971:
Lowered to 19[55]
1973:
Lowered to 18[56][57]
1979:
Raised to 19
1987:
Raised to 21[8][58]
21

Nebraska
?
21[59]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 19[59]
1980:
Raised to 20[14]
1985:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Nevada
?
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

New Hampshire
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18[60]
1979:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[8][21]
21

New Jersey
Before 1880:
None
Post-1880:
18 (penalties only against businesses)[61][62][63]
21[citation needed]
1973:
Lowered to 18[12]
1980:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 21[8][64]
21

New Mexico
?
1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

New York
21
18[65]
18
1982:
Raised to 19 in 1982 (Dec)
1985:
Raised to 21 in 1985 (Dec)[21][66][67]
21

North Carolina
?
18[11]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1983:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

North Dakota
?
1936:
21[7]
21[14]
21[68]
21

Ohio
?
1935:
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[69]
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor
1982 (Aug. 19 to Oct. 1):
19: for 3.2% ABW beer[14]
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[14]
1982 (From Oct. 1):
19: beer
21: wine and liquor[70]
1988:
21[14]
21 (However, anyone can drink with parents or legal-age spouse)

Oklahoma
?
Men:
21
Women:
18: 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[71]
1976:
Lowered to 18 (for 3.2% ABW beer) for both sexes in 1976 (Dec)[72]
Last state to lower the drinking age.
1983:
Raised to 21[11][73]
21

Oregon
?
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

Pennsylvania
?
1935:
21[7]
21
21[8][52]
21

Rhode Island
?
21[11]
1970:
Lowered to 18[12][74]
1980:
Raised to 19
1981:
Raised to 20
1984:
Raised to 21[21]
21

South Carolina
21[75]
1935:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1984:
19: for beer and wine[7]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

South Dakota
?
1934:
21 (all)
1939:
Lowered to 18: for 3.2% beer
Raised to 19: for 3.2% beer[76]
1972:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[13]
1984:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[8]
1988:
Raised to 21[58]
21

Tennessee
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21[77]
21[7]
1964:
Lowered to 18[7]
1979:
Raised to 19
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Texas
Pre 1909:
21
None (with written permission of parent or guardian)
Post 1909:
21[78][79]
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 18[80]
1981:
Raised to 19[81]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

Utah
?
1935:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Vermont
?
21[7]
1971:
Lowered to 18[82][83]
1986:
Raised to 21[21][83]
21

Virginia
?
21[84]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
(21: for liquor remained)[84]
1981:
Raised to 19 for off-premises consumption
1983:
Raised to 19 (all beer)
1985:
Raised to 21[84]
21

Washington
"Age of majority"
since 1877[85]
21[citation needed]
21
21[8]
21

West Virginia
?
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all)[86]
1983:
Raised to 19
(& 21 for non-residents)[8][43]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Wisconsin
1839–1866:
18: for wine and liquor
None: for beer
Post-1866:
21 (all)[87]
18: for beer
21: for wine and spirits
1957:
21: for residents of bordering states with age limit 21.[88]
1963:
Raised to 21 (off-premises beer sales, remained 18 for on-premises).[88]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all) in 1972 (Mar)[88]
1977:
Border state restriction lifted.[88]
1984:
Raised to 19
1986:
Raised to 21 (September 1, 1986)[88]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)[citation needed]

Wyoming
?
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 19[13]
1988:
Raised to 21 in 1988 (Jul 1)[89][90]
Last state to raise de jure drinking age to 21
21

American Samoa
?
?
?
21?
21[91]

Northern Mariana Islands
–
–
?
21?
21[92]

Puerto Rico
?
18
18
Kept at 18
despite 10% highway funding
penalty under Drinking Age Act.
18[93]

Virgin Islands
?
?
?
18
18[94]

Guam
?
21?
18
18
Raised to 21 in 2010[5]

text: Additional notes[edit]

text:
Contrary to popular belief, since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, not all states specifically prohibit minors' and young adults' consumption of alcohol in private settings. That is because the federal law is concerned only with purchase and public possession, not private consumption, and contains several exceptions. As of January 1, 2007, 14 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 19 states do not specifically ban underage consumption outright, and 17 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. Federal law explicitly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage possession laws.[41]
In the 1960s the age for buying or drinking beer and wine in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) was 18; the age for hard liquor was 21.[23][24] Residents from Virginia and Maryland would often drive to D.C. to obtain alcohol. In Louisiana, the 1987 law raising the age from 18 to 21 was deliberately written solely to comply with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 to avoid losing highway funding, while still allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink as before. Not only did it still allow 18- to 20-year-olds to consume in private, it contained a major loophole allowing bars and stores to sell alcohol to 18- to 20-year-olds without penalty (despite purchase being technically illegal) which meant that the de facto age was still 18.[39] In other words, the drinking age was 21 only on paper. This loophole was closed in 1995, but in 1996 the Louisiana Supreme Court declared a drinking age of 21 unconstitutional.[39] That briefly lowered the de jure purchase age to 18, causing an uproar which prompted the Louisiana Supreme Court to reverse its decision, raising the age to 21 three months later.[40] Other exceptions still remain to this day, including drinking in a private residence,[41] and Louisiana still has some of the most liberal general alcohol laws of any state.
Some states were "dry" well before national Prohibition was enacted in 1919, in some cases since achieving statehood. Also, some states did not become fully "wet" until several years after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (e.g. Mississippi in 1966). Since 1966, all states and territories of the USA have been "wet", but dry counties and towns still exist in some states.