Ferguson Affects Our Foreign Affairs?

With everything that has been going on with the Ferguson and Garner cases regarding racial inequality in the U.S, news has spread quickly to other countries, giving them, "free propaganda rides". Our problems with race have become "front-page news" and allow other countries opportunities to argue that our problems reveal "American hypocrisy".

The article, "Ferguson and Garner Cases Hurt U.S. Foreign Policy", by Jeff Stein, suggests that President Obama should “take a page out of Kennedy’s book”, and deal with the racial issues the U.S. is dealing with today the same way Kennedy did in the 60’s. Kennedy took action quickly, working to desegregate and rule out any reasons for Russia, with whom the U.S was in the midst of the cold war with, to the U.S hypocritical for trying to police the world without policing themselves first. JFK said, “We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home... but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other, that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettos, no master race except with respect to Negroes?”, convincing the country and others that racial inequality was not okay with him. By acting upon the issues at hand, JFK was able to “change the narrative abroad”, and in the article, President Obama is called upon to do the same. Mary Dudziak, a professor at both Stanford and Emery and author of Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy, is quoted in the article saying that the, “racial problems in the U.S.” undermines “our ability to criticize”. She then suggests that “Obama needs to present [racial discrimination] as one of the nation’s most pressing and urgent problems”, claiming the alternative would be, “Ceding the battleground to the very dark forces now closing in on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria”. Nuclear war was at stake in the 60’s, but now, even though, “The U.S. has consolidated its power”, it, “still wants and needs a powerful, positive message to compete for young minds tempted by the siren song of Islamic revolutionaries”, closing with the fact that, “We can’t pursue a human rights agenda abroad if we’re not protecting them at home”.

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy announced in an annual address to Congress made by President James Monroe regarding Latin American countries in 1823. If the U.S was still following the Monroe Doctrine today, it would not be trying to set an example for other countries in the first place because of the “Separate Spheres of Influence” portion of the Monroe Doctrine, which states that the U.S wouldn’t meddle in any other country’s business and all of the other countries shouldn’t meddle in the U.S’s; so there would be no concern for setting an example in the first place. Also in the Monroe Doctrine is the “Non-colonization” rule which states that no country can dominate another. Although this portion of the doctrine is talking about colonizing and the idea of dominating other countries and the U.S. is not doing that, the idea of the U.S. being the golden country and police for all the others would not exist if we were still following the doctrine today. The last part of the doctrine is the “Non-intervention” portion which states that the U.S. won’t interfere in other countries’ affairs unless it directs the U.S directly. If we were still following it, the idea of setting an example and trying to help other countries’ with their issues wouldn’t exist anyways, so the issue of appearing hypocritical wouldn’t either.

   

The whole point of the article was that if President Obama doesn’t act fast, our country will appear as hypocritical to others because we would be policing other countries without policing our own. Our foreign policy today allows us to intervene, influence, and step in when other countries are struggling, which is great; but, it also unfortunately leads to bad press when it seems we don’t have our act together with our own country, causing the U.S. to appear as unfit and hypocritical when helping others. If the Monroe Doctrine were in place today there would be no issue of this, but, our country may appear as weak and selfish for not helping others and lending a hand when needed.

Article Source: Stein, Jeff. "Ferguson and Garner Cases Hurt U.S. Foreign Policy." Newsweek. NEWSWEEK LLC, 5 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.

Race: Then and Now

Simón Bolívar had the idea of uniting South American countries through the idea that they are all "South- American", using race and South- American identification as his convincing factors in persuading people of the countries he wanted to unite to get on board with his plan. He tried to paint the picture of one big culture coming together through Gran Colombia, but in the end was not able to fully complete his plan as many countries broke off right before his retirement.

Bolívar started out as a young officer in Caracas in 1810, whose goal was to liberate the whole of New Granada from Spanish rule. From 1811 until 1830 he worked to liberate and unite South American countries with the goal of creating “Gran Colombia”, one large South American Republic. But, due to the frequent reconquering of the countries by Spain and the many formal seceding’s by independent South American countries just before Simón Bolívar retired he was never able to unite all of the countries simultaneously thus causing his dream of one big republic to fall apart. He wanted to unite all of the countries through the idea that they could all identify as one thing; South American. Because the countries were so heavily divided by social class based on race at the time, the idea of all uniting under one identity was appealing to everyone, except the Spanish who controlled the countries of course. Due to frequent reconquering, the countries were forced to create their own identities to unite under in the meantime, as they didn’t belong in one place for long periods of time. Because of this development, once Gran Colombia was finally formed, many countries seceded from it; their individual country’s identification and unity being enough. Simón Bolívar was able to use race to unite South Americans through South-American-ness, inspiring those countries to individualize even further creating the cultures of the modern South American countries we know today.

The article I chose, “Chris Rock: How We Talk About Race in U.S. Is ‘Nonsense’”, from TIME.com, is written by Maya Rhodan, and is a piece describing Chris Rock’s thoughts on race in the US. It is not an article that is reactant to one particular event, but rather a perspective on racial progress of blacks and whites in the US as a whole lately and the misconceptions it carries. Racial progress is talked about often when referring to the way blacks are treated and the accomplishments black people make, and in the article, Chris Rock explains why he thinks it’s wrong to call it “progress”. Rock says, “There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before”, which is something I completely agree with. I think that race is still a huge part of the way people identify in this country, and I do think that politics are greatly affected by it, but the idea that black people are changing and being recognized because they finally have a reason to be is completely false. As Rock said, to call it progression the black people would have had to deserve the way they were treated before and would have had to improve as people in some way, but they haven’t. What has changed is the perception of them, and even people of other races. Generations and generations of white people have become educated and many have come to realize it is not okay to judge someone based on the color of their skin; allowing black people to finally be recognized in society and allow them to accomplish big things such as become president, etc. But that is not to say racism is dead, because it is certainly not. In my opinion, if Michael Brown were a white kid, and the officer were black, he would be indicted right away, no matter where the fault lays, because that is just the way things are at the moment in our country’s perception of black crime. The only progression there has been is the progression of tolerance and acceptance of other races, which should have been there all along. Black people are not becoming better, white people just are becoming more accepting.

Article Source: Rhodan, Maya. "Chris Rock: How We Talk About Race in the U.S. Is 'Nonsense'" Time. Time, O1 Dec. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

Congress of Vienna; No More Napoleon

Napoleon's reign as emperor was influential not only when he was alive and conquering, but even after he had been exiled and out of power.

In fact, he was so influential, that all of the European powers decided to hold a Congress in order to make a plan and set up new rules that would protect from one becoming as powerful as Napoleon did.

Our essential question this week was "What should people in power do when their power is threatened?". It pertains to the decisions made in the Congress of Vienna to protect against a napoleonic abuse of power. In class, we modeled the congress of Vienna. We were given problems to discuss in small groups, and then picked which  solution we thought would best benefit the "New Europe". After all of the groups decided what would be best, we were told what solution was actually picked by the congress members. This gave us insight to how the congress worked, and the ideas behind the new customs Europe implemented.

The Holy Alliance was a concept initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, in which monarchs had Divine right to rule, and any revolution was treason and against God. The congress implemented this concept in order to stamp out the threat of revolution, which is what had caused Napoleon's rise to power in the first place. They hoped that making revolution a charge of treason and declaring it "against God" would ensure that peace would continue. This, and all of the other concepts initiated by the Congress of Vienna, were all to prevent anything like Napoleon's reign of power from happening again.

I don't think that the best solution would have been the Holy Alliance. Personally, I feel that if the Congress of Vienna chose to have the "monarchs act with more benevolence toward their peoples in the hope of quelling revolutionary ideas" and have "European leaders support religious toleration and greater freedom of speech and develop and support the arts, sciences and education"; or, in other words, choice C, Europe would have had a better chance at maintaining peace. In order for chaos and revolution to be avoided, a ruler needs to listen and accommodate people. By doing that, trust will be built between the monarch/government, and the people wouldn't have a reason to uprise. The powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power in order to maintain a peaceful country.

SOURCE: http://www.napoleonguide.com/convienna.htm

The World's Most Iconic Little Leader

Napoleon was arguably Europe’s most iconic leader. Although he was and continues to be quite a controversial figure in history, there’s no denying he was great at what he did. While he was in power, he not only redrew the map of Europe through all of his conquering and overtaking of other countries, but established many other social, economic, and political reforms while he was at it, completely changing the way much of Europe was operated. His influence still lives on today, and will most likely until the end of time; Napoleon was and continues to be one of history’s finest leaders.

Through his social impact, Napoleon’s concern for education and merit was made clear. All across Europe he abolished all titles of nobility, serfdom, and church privilege; thus ending the long standing ideas that one could be considered lesser or greater based on the status they were born into. His reform didn't end social class based on birthright completely, but it was a step in the right direction for hard-work to be valued. He also established a meritocracy, a system in which people were rewarded for their skills instead of their social class, again establishing the idea that merit was important. He granted everyone more rights to property and made education more accessible for citizens as well.

Source: http://www.biography.com/people/napoleon-9420291

Bonaparte also had a huge economic impact on Europe. He was able to restore economic prosperity to France after the Revolution through controlling prices, encouraging and stimulating new industry, removing trade barriers, and building new roads and canals. He was able to establish the Bank of France, balance the budget, and undertake massive public work programs; all of which only contributed to his supporters’ admiration for him. All of his changes had great and positive impact on not only France and much of Europe’s economy, but the way he was viewed as well. His ingenious ideas won over many of the average citizens, and so did the avid concern he seemed to have for the middle man. He was considering others beside himself and the government, which was something that hadn't really been done in past European governments.

The political impact Napoleon made was equally as important as his social and economic impacts. He had great influence and power, and was able to conquer almost all of Europe besides Britain through his war leadership and tactics. He was a bit intimidating too, seeing as when the Directory became aware of his intentions to overthrow them in 1709, all five members resigned. Napoleon also reorganized the government of Egypt and established the Institute of Egypt while he was at it, an establishment that eventually began the study of Ancient Egypt, which is still a huge part of the world’s studies today.

Although there are many who claim that Napoleon was an unlikable character or not as influential as he is claimed to be, there really is no argument that he changed the way a lot of the world worked. Through his economic, social, and political reforms he was able to not only change much of Europe for the better but also impact other countries as well; even to this day many of his ideas still resonate in many societies. Napoleon Bonaparte was not only Europe’s most influential leader, but one of the most influential leaders to have ever walked the Earth.

Socialism, Capitalism, and Starburst

To think that the number of starburst you received at the beginning of our class activity on last Thursday determined how wealthy you would be in our mock capitalist society is admittedly quote absurd to imagine. Although that was the case, it certainly had its purpose. We spent our class learning about Capitalism and Socialism, and even though the idea of using starburst sounds silly, it was a lot more helpful in explaining how the societies worked than you would think.

Upon entering class, Ms. Bailey handed each of us either three or ten starburst, thus determining your position in society. There were a lot less people who ended up with ten, and a lot more of us who received only three (I was one to receive only three). The reason for the difference in numbers was to show how some people are born into more money than others. So few people were given ten to demonstrate how there are so few people sharing such a great amount of wealth, in our case starburst, in the upper class of societies, and how the little money left had to be spread over a much larger amount of people. After distribution, we were told we could play rock-paper-scissors with each other to try and gain more starburst, this was to demonstrate how no matter your class, you can gain or lose money. Trading ensued, and the class ended up figuring out alternative ways to gain, such as stealing and begging. Through this, anyone had a fair chance to gain or lose starburst. Then Ms. Bailey collected all of our starburst, no matter how many we had gained or lost through trade, a redistributed the starburst, each of us receiving three. This caused some rage, mostly from the people who had worked hard to gain (or steal) starburst, because they were now equal to all of the others, even though they worked hard to be successful. The newfound equality of starburst among us was to demonstrate a socialist society. I was personally really frustrated when the candy was collected, because although I stole the majority of the candy I ended up with, it was still hard work.

In the socrative seminar there were a lot of great points made about both the activity, and about Capitalism and Socialism. April had a simple, but very relatable comment on the redistribution of the candy, which was: "If you're working hard for something and you become successful, to have it all taken away just really sucks". I really couldn't have said it better myself, and everyone seemed to agree that having it all be equal wasn't fair to the more successful people in the class. There was also a mutual agreement about socialism, being that it's a great system for the poor and lazy because they're provided with an equal source of income without much work required, but for the wealthy and hardworking it is very frustrating that they receive the same amount of money as people who don't work half as hard as them; coming to the conclusion that how the system is flawed. Socialism allows for inactive members of a society to remain inactive and be rewarded for it, and grants no real reward for those who work 3 times as hard and deserve 3 times as much income as everyone else. Julianne put it well, saying that socialism "destroys natural competition", meaning, without social classes there is not only no way for people to get ahead, but nothing for anyone to aspire to be or have, thus creating lazy members of society. But, Capitalism isn't perfect either. Julianne also said, "Capitalism is intended for people with good intentions and working habits, but societies don't always support that— the rich don't always help out the poor, and the poor don't always work", which I again, couldn't agree more with.

 Karl Marx, the father of Communism, and co-creator of socialism, and Adam Smith, creator of Capitalism and the “Invisible Hand” both had the poor of society in their best interests, but had very different theories on how to help them. Marx believed that with Socialism economic equality could be reached through the government’s complete ownership of industry, meaning there was no free trade. Through Socialism Marx aimed for a classless society, which seems great from the perspective of someone living in poverty. If there were no classes and no one had more money than others, there would be no more poverty; but this only works to a certain extent. Everyone earning the same amount of money would mean that a Neurosurgeon would be paid the same salary as a fry cook, which isn’t fair in the least bit. With that idea in place, what motivation would one even have to become something as important as a surgeon, if they would be paid the same money as someone working half as hard as them? Socialism is great in the sense that poverty wouldn’t be as big of a problem, but it creates a lazy society in which people won’t work as hard to earn salary, because its equal to everyone else’s. But that doesn’t mean Capitalism and the Invisible Hand theories aren’t just as flawed.

Smith’s idea of Capitalism would work perfectly in a completely honest and good society, but those, unfortunately, do not exist. Capitalism is the idea that there is private ownership of industry and freedom of competition, or, in other words: people are born into the money that they’re born into, and depending on how hard they work they will be able to change social classes. But, it results in unequal economic classes and due to the greedy nature of many humans, much poverty. Capitalism is made to work in an ideal society in which the rich would help the poor, but that is very few times the case. The Invisible Hand is also made for an ideal society, for it is made to work like this: the people would govern themselves, if competition between companies arose they would battle it out until one becomes more prominent, leaving the other to find something different to market. This way the things people want are produced with no excess, and the market grows. The problems with this theory are that it would only work if people were all good and honest, and there were unlimited supplies for people to move onto working with. It is very ideal and unlikely to work, not only because of the said reasons, but also because the economy could stall and it takes a very long time to reach equilibrium in an economy.

I would have to say there isn’t one theory I like best. I would say capitalism, but only if the society was perfect and all of the ideals in Capitalism worked out. I feel like a blend of both Socialism and Capitalism might be key, but just what that blend might be, I don’t have a clue. I kind of liked what Ryan came up with in the Socrative Seminar, it was to give everyone just enough money to live on, plus a little more. The extra money could be used for anything, and with it, people could either get ahead or fall behind. There would be social classes without complete poverty or absurd wealth. But, I also disagree with that theory because I don’t think everyone should just automatically get paid for being a part of society, only those who were ambitious would rise up, and everyone else remaining stable yet somewhat lazy because they could rely on the same amount of money to have all the time without working too hard. So I guess my answer is I have no idea. Both work in theory, but neither is really a GREAT solution, even though I prefer Capitalism to Socialism. 

RAFT- Luddites: Taking Sides

During England's Industrial Revolution, a group of  people known as the Luddites became a prevalent force. They were skilled artisans, against machinery replacing people making goods. They believed that there was value in handmade goods, and because of industrialization their business' were being evaporated by the new, cheaper, and faster- made goods the factories provided for their former customers. They became fed up with all of the industrialization because of this, and started destroying machinery to make the point that they wouldn't put up with it destroying their business'. The Luddites weren't necessarily hateful people, and they didn't hate the people who worked in the factories, but, they did wish that the employees working at the mills were actually skilled in the craft of their business' instead of just being a source cheap labor for the factory owners. The following is a mock primary source letter from a skilled weaver being pressured to join the Luddite movement.

Dear Addison,

I have written to tell you about the Luddite Movement. I know you have probably heard some about it already, but Mother told me to write and tell you the details. The Luddites are a group of skilled artisans protesting machinery taking over small business'. They protest it by destroying the machines destroying their livelihood. I am not a Luddite yet, but I am a weaver, and my business is crumbling because of all of the factories and industrialization. I used to have a solid 15 customers who came to me regularly, and I am now down to about 4. I don't want to resort to the violence, as the machines have done nothing wrong, but I am feeling all sorts of pressure from my colleagues to join the movement. I'm so torn; I was to remain a pacifist, but I will go out of business if things continue the way they are, and I feel it is my duty to join the Luddites.

I hope all is well, and perhaps in your response you can tell me your thoughts on my predicament? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Give Aunt Lucy and Uncle Samuel my best wishes, and I hope all is well over in Pennsylvania.

Your Cousin,
Siobhan

Women of the Mills

Blog Post # 2: Attitudes Towards Women:

Up until the first Industrial Revolution, attitudes towards women had always been the same. Generations upon generations passed down a then commonly known yet utterly false belief that women were second-class citizens. They were thought to be useless outside of the kitchen, and many had this idea that their main purpose was to reproduce. But, the Industrial Revolution offered opportunity for women to change those attitudes. Through the encouragement for women to join the workforce they were given a voice, and given a chance to be independent from men. Although the Industrial Revolution didn't make any huge improvements to the way they were treated, it was a starting point for many women's rights activists, and foundation of the women's rights movement.

As mill-work was the first time women were actually encouraged to join the workforce, of course many jumped at the opportunity. But there was a price to pay for this new treatment. Although women working was a sign that society had finally started to consider them as equal, it also left a lot of opportunity for men to treat them as harshly as they had before. They knew that women would put up with bad treatment because of their new dependence on their jobs to support themselves. With this knowledge, they provided little pay and unfit working and living conditions for the women, knowing they would put up with it because they needed jobs.

There were benefits to mill work too, but they are sparse compared to the cons of working in a mill.
Even though mill work received little pay, it still was a way for a woman to provide money for herself and family. Learning the trade of millworker was also beneficial for women later on in life because it gave them a way to make money as a seamstress and be independent if they never married and needed to provide for themselves.

The treatment women received in the mills really just emphasized that although men and society still thought of them as lower, they were no longer considered to be as completely useless as they had
previously been. Through the Industrial Revolution women found that because they were a part of the workforce they had a voice, and they started to actually stand up for themselves. When their pay was cut they protested and went to strike; standing up for themselves and their rights as citizens. These protests and strikes started the idea that women weren't going to put up with unfair treatment the way they always had, and events like that from the Lowell Experiment were the foundation for the women's rights movement.

My Experiences as a Curator and Spectator

This past week, I have been working on a mock museum curation project about the Industrial Revolution with my group. Our particular exhibit focused around the progression of the weaving industry and factories throughout the revolution. Things started simple with the basic cottager businesses — which consisted of someone weaving at their house to use for profit— and evolved into efficient textile mills and factories which mass-produced weaved products and eventually caused the cottagers to go out of business.

For this project, we had to do many things to prepare before our exhibit would be displayed, and one of the most important things for us to do was analyze our sources. As part of our analysis, we all worked together to figure out what each source intended to show viewers and what authors of each source wanted the audience to take away from their work. This process took the longest, but was the most important part of the project. Analysis is such an important part of the curation process because, to be a curator, you need to know what you're presenting to others. If you don't know exactly what each piece in your exhibit is, how can you even make a claim that the pieces of work featured are important enough to display? Through our analysis we made sure we all understood the significance of each piece, and that really helped us with the creation of the exhibit as a whole.

Our exhibit is called, "Spinning into the Future; A Woven Destiny", and it included six pieces/ sources total. We came up with our title after our analysis, because through our analyzing we realized that each piece had to do with the evolution of the weaving industry. The sources were about Cottagers, the effect weaving factories had on Cottagers, John Almonds Hand Loom, the basic loom, and textile mills. The layout of our pieces is important because it shows the progression of the weaving industry from simple Cottagers to highly functioning mills.

The thing I most want people to take away from our exhibit is the idea that everything had to do with progress in the Industrial Revolution, and I hope that our layout helps contribute to that idea, along with the placards.

Here is a picture of our exhibit:

The four exhibits I got to observe were all very well done, and I was able to extract valuable information about the Industrial Revolution from each one.

The first exhibit I saw, "Hot Stuff: How the Steam Engine Fired Up the Industrial Revolution" explored the idea of steam engines and their impact on transportation. From the placards, I was able to gather that over time steam engines and canals became the main method of transportation, and because they were so advanced and foreign to people, many were skeptical of them. There were two poems included in the project, both having to do with new transportation, and those really helped me grasp just how revolutionary the steam engine was for people. Below, I have included a picture of a diagram of how a steam engine works. I found it really interesting and I never would have known this was the way a steam engine worked had it not been included in the project.

The second exhibit I observed was, “All Work, No Play; A Look at Child Labor during the Industrial Revolution”. The curators did a great job of organizing their project in an effective and creative way, making it easy for observers to obtain the information about child labor during the Industrial Revolution. I had always known that working conditions for children were terrible, but I had no idea that they would go so far as to strap children in leather harnesses and force them to pull things like mules.(See picture below) The group did a great job providing examples of child labor, such as how children were forced to work on unsafe machines because they were small and able to fit on top of things easily. I also really liked how they included information on the Factory Act of 1833 which was a document that prevented young kids from working in dangerous factories, and made it illegal for children to work for more than 12 hours a day and 69 hours a week.

"Cotton or Freedom? You decide:" provided great insight into how the cotton industry worked and how slaves were affected. The curators gave a great explanation of how slavery played a part in the Industrial Revolution, and I found out that the entire concept was able to come full circle; slavery produced cotton, cotton produced money, money produced factories, and factories produced slavery, which is what it started with. There was a chart that showed the increase in slave population which I found to be a really helpful and great addition because it gave me a way to physically see how as the slave population grew. (See picture below)

The final exhibit I visited was "The Dark Side of the Industrial Revolution", and it really opened my eyes. It explored the positive and negative effects of the industrial revolution, focusing on how as the revolution grew, so did the levels of pollution. While it was great that new inventions were made and production was increasing, so was pollution, and soon enough, English cities were covered with thick black smoke. There was one picture I included below because I thought it really emphasized the idea of pollution, and with the gray sky it gives me a good idea of just how bad it was.

I really enjoyed this process of curating and spectating. Through looking through other group's projects, I saw that there were a lot of ideas other groups used that we had used in our exhibit, while there were also a lot of cool methods of organization I wished we had used in ours. Over all, I was really impressed with all of the exhibits and I feel I've learned a great deal about the industrial revolution from the walk through and also through the work I did with my group to create our own exhibit.