And so we finally arrive at our destination

In Laura's post here, she notes that "It’s really interesting to me that it was the arguments over religion that seemed to be the most divisive, that the Dutch people were willing to take a whole lot from their oppressive monarchs as a general rule, to give up a lot of their own freedoms, even their right to their land and money in some cases (although, as we’ll see/we’ve seen, those were two big subjects of contention), but not to give up their religion, even though it had so newly (in the grand scheme of things) become a part of their lives."

This reminded me of the original point I was/I've been trying to make with my various posts, including this one and this one as well as those on the oppression of the Irish here, here, and here. I will try to be succinct.

I think the thing I have been chasing throughout this entire project is the development of Irish identity and specifically how English occupation (and Potato Famine) helped in shaping this. I was specifically intrigued earlier by a bit I read in one of the three books. Basically, it stated that the Protestants in Ireland were initially pro-Union because they believed that they would be better protected from Catholics by their Anglican brethren. However, the Act of Union preceded the Potato Famine. The Potato Famine, I believe, was a key part of the development of the Irish identity. Protestant or Catholic, if you grew and ate potatoes, the blight affected you. This common suffering (and exacerbation by insufficient British aid my post here) solidified the Irish versus English stances (a point coaxed out of me in response to Andra's post here). This in turn led to the struggle for independence in the early 20th century, but curiously, it seems as though Protestant/Catholic resentment returned within Ireland after the declaration of the Republic of Ireland.

irish/english animosity

Regarding Andra's question here which asked about Irish/English relations in the present.

I couldn't find a lot on this in official sources, but I did come across an interesting sort of forum in which the same question was being asked. Here are some quotes which I think illustrate a myriad of viewpoints.

"fine I would say"

"i see the irish as a bunch of lovable alchaholics[sic] who are handy whenever a road needs to be repaired"

"According to my Irish Literature lecturer last year, for the majority of young people in Northern Ireland and The Republic, The Troubles are ancient history. I'd say the same goes for most young people in England too.

I think older generations in England still distrust the Irish a bit because of the IRA bombings and mass immigration in past decades but those kinda folks have the Muslims to distract them now."

"Whilst most progressive thinking people can place such issues where the firmly belong, in the past, there is still a deep seated distrust of the English by many with Irish backgrounds, particularly those of the Roman-Catholic persuasion.

A lot of the ill will could be seen as jusitified[sic] to many. As Dara O'Briain explains, 800 years is a bit long to just let it slide.(not a direct quote, but those were his sentiments)."

"There's also the political history to take into consideration. It can't be denied that the actions of a nation define how others see that nation, and if for generations your country contrives to oppress and harass, then it's to be expected you'll be resented for genrations[sic] to come."

"I mean, if it wasn't for the English; Irish would be our first language, but prior to getting our independence, the English banned the teaching of the Irish language so it's more or less dead now..."

"I think that relations are good but only as long as the English don't make light of the issue or forget about what was done to Ireland under their rule."

My impression is that Irish/English animosity still exists if you dig deep enough. If I wanted to be drastic, I might compare it to slavery/racial prejudice in the United States. It's there, people feel it, but for the most part we're trying to leave it behind ourselves, and yet there are still indelible marks (like language) which will stick with us forever.

Is Ireland Free?

This is a question I've been toying with since Andra asked a variation on it in this post. She inquired, "Do you think that your [] countr[y] ha[s] gained full and complete independence? Does Ireland still depend on England? Would they be able to do anything if England decided they wanted to occupy Ireland again?" which I transformed into the title of this blog, but I digress.

In all honesty, I don't know if Ireland is free. On one hand, the facts speak for themselves.
-On April 18, 1949 Éire became the Republic of Ireland, effectively freeing itself from any formal allegiance to England, but the two countries were still very much connected. British citizens in the Éire were given the same legal rights and vice versa.
-On December 14, 1955, the republic joined the U.N.
-In the 1960's and 1970's, emigration finally declined, due in large part to the meeting of economic goals and general economic improvement.
-The IRA was denounced for its terrorism early on in the mid-20th century.
-In 1972, Ireland joined the European Community and ended the "special constitutional status of the Roman Catholic church."

On the other, how does one define freedom? Ireland governs itself, but will it ever be free of English influence? Here, once more, I think of traditional, non-European colonization. Look at Buenos Aires? It is forever a mark of European influence in Argentina. What language is more commonly spoken in Ireland, Irish or English?

So my response? Ireland is free, politically, but, by virtue of geographical proximity and cultural ties, not to mention historical involvement, Ireland will never be able to fully shake off England's presence.

(Source)

Questions for the Group

Andra: In this post, which I really enjoyed, you talked about emigration from Latvia and asked about conditions under British rule, which I kind of addressed here and here, operating under the fact that a majority of the Irish were Catholic. You talk a lot about things on a very personal level (e.g. the woman's account) or a very large scale level (struggle for independence). I'm curious about somewhere between the two. What exactly were the rules instated by the USSR in Latvia? How did this oppression contribute to animosity between Latvians and the USSR?

Laura: Religion obviously had a large influence in the Spanish Netherlands and Ireland. I wonder how exactly religion was important? On a governing level? On a civilian level? In Ireland, religion was a polarizing factor, dividing countrymen into Protestant and Catholic, but, like in the Thirty Years' war, ultimately religion was not the most important factor in choosing sides. Eventually, after enough oppression and neglect by the British, religious differences fell aside (though, to be fair Protestants were a very small minority).

How Ireland became Ireland

Kind of the last bit to tack onto the previous post.

Ireland became Éire (or in English, Ireland) in the 1930's, when Fianna Fáil (who had opposed the treaty, also known as the Soldiers of Destiny) came into power. It is known as the Republican Party and is currently in power as well.

Ireland remained neutral during WWII, though it assisted the Allies minimally.

It declared itself a republic in 1949.

Source

How Ireland Became Free

This is a good question, posed by Andra here.

It's kind of a departure from what I've been talking about, but why not go into this quickly? Or rather, I will try to, since I think one of the problems I've been having in this project is focusing on the big picture, the entire project; I get tunnel vision at points, but here goes.

This is a really good resource.

-In 1917, at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis all parties in opposition to British rule united with the goal of establishing a free Irish republic.
-In 1919, the Irish Parliament (Dail Eireann) met for the first time and decided to take over local government and let British rule fall away (I'm not exactly sure how this was going to work).
-This obviously turned violent, morphing into guerrilla warfare after Britain outlawed Sinn Fein and Dail Eireann and introduced a much stronger military presence (Black and Tans).
-In 1920, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was passed, which divided Ireland into North and South. The North accepted the act, while the South did not.
-In 1921, a treaty was reached which maintained Ireland as a part of the British Empire, but with Dominion status. Ireland became The Irish Free State and remained a British Dominion until the 1940's.
-In 1922, the treaty was narrowly passed.
-In 1922-23, civil war broke out between followers of Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera. Collins was killed and Valera became president of the divided Ireland. (Source)

I am most intrigued by this sort of move towards legislative restructuring made by the Irish and their hope that the British government would just fall apart. It kind of reminds me of Solidarity in Poland. I wonder if anything like this was seen in the Spanish Netherlands or Latvia, though I'd think that it'd be more likely in Latvia.

Andra noted that, "I see another connection between Latvia and the Spanish Netherlands in the way they gained their independence. Neither of them really caused their own independence, though both sides fought for it and desperately wanted it. Rather, it was the weakening of the empires that occupied these two countries that allowed them to gain independence." Interestingly, I think this is what the Irish hoped would happen with Britain. Given that their actions directly followed WWI, perhaps they were banking on the fact that Britain had been weakened by the war.

Workhouses

A quick aside on workhouses which were briefly mentioned in my previous post.

A workhouse, as defined by is "a place where people who were unable to support themselves could go to live and work." With the word comes images from Oliver Twist, but this post specifically wishes to discuss workhouses in Ireland.

Workhouses were created in Ireland under the Workhouse Act of 1838 (encompassed in the Poor Law Act) which saw to the creation of Poor Law Unions within Ireland. Each union built and managed its own workhouse, as controlled by individual Boards of Guardians which choose who were allowed into the workhouse and discussed all administrative affairs. Each workhouse was built to house 400-800 "inmates," though these numbers swelled during the famine, worsening already squalid conditions.

As conditions worsened and disease became rampant, workhouses faced bankruptcy from over-enrollment, so in 1847, an amendment was made to the Poor Law Act, allowing unions to provide "outdoor relief" (food, money, clothes etc.) as opposed to "indoor relief" (shelter, work within the workhouse).

The Workhouse Act passed in spite of significant Irish dissent. ("Eighty-six petitions from Ireland were presented to the Parliament. They totaled 36,221 signatures against, and only 593 signatures in favor of the work house act. All of Ireland, north and south, Protestant as well as Catholic, were opposed to the Bill" (source).)

Again, here, you can see a theme I referred to earlier in my posts, that the lines between Protestant and Catholic became less important as the relations between England and Ireland became more polarizing.

Famine

Responding to Andra's post:

In your post, you comment that, "However, the potato famine was not created by the British, which means that the Irish left the homeland due to a natural disaster, if I may call it that, rather than because of their oppression by the British." You also inquire as to whether there might be a trend in people emigrating from their homes because of oppressive occupations.

While the actual famine wasn't created by England, the British government caused many of the ensuing repercussions. Namely, under British rule as previously mentioned, Irish Catholics couldn't own land, which meant that they were forced to rent plots of land from British landlords. Because the plots were so small, Irishmen chose to cultivate potato rather than grain, as a plot would yield three times the amount of potatoes as it would grain in a year. Potatoes also were one of those foods that really stuck to the ribs. One acre of land would feed a family for a year. When the blight struck, the Irish found themselves unable to pay their rents or feed their families.

Yet, as the British watched the Irish struggle, their "relief efforts" first took the shape of economic reform. In 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed in a belief that a free market would help alleviate the famine; however, the Irish were too poor to buy the newly available grain.

Relief also came in the form of soup kitchens, but these gradually dwindled as England suffered a banking crises and had to withdraw many of its efforts. Ultimately, "aid" came in the form of workhouses (more on this later). So, while the famine, the blight, the rot was not some sort of biological warfare waged on Ireland, England did little to help, and more to exacerbate the problem.

Source: here

Act of Union (pt. II)

I have come to realize that perhaps my previous linkage to the VictorianWeb website was perhaps not the most thorough choice. Though it is a nice summary of the Act of Union, it excludes a few things. Source 1, I believe, says it better. Given the outline that “The first four articles settled the political basis of the union; the fifth related to the church; the sixth to commerce; the seventh to finance; the eight to law and legal procedure,” I’ll try to put some bullet points down for you (280-281). Since I’m not as concerned with the political representation that Irishmen had under the Act of Union, I shall not include very much at this point. The prior summary did adequately.

-Church of England was joined with Church of Ireland. This was “deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the union.
-Subjects should have same privileges in commerce. Basically this meant “free trade”, as mentioned, but “while the excise duties on certain home products and the duties on certain foreign imports continued to be levied at different rates in GB and Ireland, there was to be a system of countervailing duties and drawbacks on such commodities passing from one country to the other” (281). Also, for 20 years, customs duties would remain on cotton and woolen goods, which I assume ties in with non-competition (Ibid.).
-Each country would be responsible for its own national debt.
-Eventually, each country would become responsible for equal parts of UK national debt, at which point the two individual debts would be united.
-Laws and courts would remain the same. All cases at the time of union would be finished in the house of lords of the United Kingdom.

It seems to me that the Act of Union was quite transitory, and rightly so. One cannot simply join together two groups of people and expect the union to “stick” right off the bat. Well, one can expect, but one will most certainly be wrong.

To read more on the Act of Union of 1800/1801, you can check out Britannica or Wikipedia.

This entry feeds into this entry.

Act of Union (pt. I)

I currently have three books checked out of the library, all having to do with Irish history. I was doing some reading on Friday, cleverly wrote down some page numbers on my hand, and then, even more cleverly, I got a manicure and washed my hands several times. Not my finest moment perhaps, but I digress.
The three books are this (we’ll call this source 1), this (source 2), and this (source 3).
In one of them I read the interesting point that The Act of Union (made in 1800, put into effect in 1801) changed the divisions within Ireland itself. To arrive at this conclusion though, we must know what the Act of Union is. As mentioned before, PM Pitt had promised complete emancipation for Catholics to be made within the Act of Union, but the question I left off before was if this actually happened (2). Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. Pitt surrendered his position when faced with strong opposition from the king and other ministers.
In fact, the Act of Union is nicely summarized by this website.

In 1800 the Act of Union was passed by both the Irish and British parliaments despite much opposition. It was signed by George III in August 1800 to become effective on 1 January 1801. Pitt intended to follow the Act of Union with other, more far reaching reforms, including Catholic Emancipation, but was thwarted by George III, who refused to break his Coronation Oath to uphold the Anglican Church. The 1801 Act of Union said that

* Ireland was to be joined to Great Britain into a single kingdom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
* the Dublin parliament was abolished. Ireland was to be represented at Westminster by 100 MPs, 4 Lords Spiritual and 28 Lords Temporal (all were Anglicans).
* the Anglican Church was to be recognised as the official Church of Ireland.
* there was to be free trade between Ireland and Britain.
* Ireland was to keep a separate Exchequer and was to be responsible for two-seventeenths of the general expense of the United Kingdom.
* Ireland kept its own Courts of Justice and civil service.
* no Catholics were to be allowed to hold public office.
* there was to be no Catholic Emancipation.

The “Coronation Oath” (wiki-link here) is an act of Parliament which is an equivalent to the Oath of Office in the United States, in which the monarch promises to maintain “the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law.”

This entry feeds into this entry.

Catholic and Irish?

Congratulations! By the late 18th century, you had some more freedoms.
You could:
-maintain schools
-"join the professions"
-vote at parliamentary elections
Bask in your newfound freedoms for a moment. Done? Let's move on.

You still could not:
-sit in parliament (I believe this means be a member of, not actually sit, though I could be wrong)
-be a judge
-be a colonel in the army
-be a captain in the navy
-be a minister in the government
-hold anything higher than a junior office in the civil government.

But wait! What is this? British PM William Pitt said that this upcoming union between Britain and Ireland will be "followed by complete emancipation for the catholic body" (249)? No way! Yes way.

Source: Moody, T.W. and F.X. Martin, ed. The Course of Irish History. Roberts Rinehart Publishers. Niwot, Colorado. 1995.

This entry feeds into this entry.

The Irish and Slavery

Last year I wrote a research paper on anti-Irish sentiment in the United States during the 19th century. The nativist reactions to the immigration of Irish people (fleeing from the Potato Famine) were rooted in economic terms, namely the perceived shortages of jobs. One thing I noted in my research last year were the connections between the Irish's oppression by England and the system of slavery in the United States. It was said that Irish work songs resembled slave songs, and some historians have suggested that the Irish became "American" by joining in the discrimination against African-Americans.

But, to bring this back on topic, as I was continuing to read The Great Famine by John Percival, I noticed the following.

Apparently, because of the strongly anti-Catholic justice system in Ireland, Irishmen were predisposed to losing in court. Percival writes that, "Already accustomed to secrecy in matters of religion, they readily took to other kinds of secret society" (24). Which got me thinking more about slaves and their secret schools and resistance efforts. Humorously, one of these "secret societies" was "The Molly Maguires" (also known as "Ribbonmen"), whose members often disguised themselves as women. What really cemented the connection for me was when Percival mentions that, "They might not be able to oppose the landlord by day, but by night they could maim his cattle or fire his ricks" (25). [To interject here, I looked up "fire his ricks" as well as "ricks" and I still haven't the foggiest as to what the phrase means. If someone knows, please share.] Essentially, the Molly Maguires/Ribbonmen worked to undermine their (land)lords, which is quite similar to the malingering efforts of slaves (If you were in Sudie's class last year, you'll remember talking about this).

This entry feeds into this entry.

Catholic and Irish?

If so, you'd have some problems in 18th century Ireland.
At this time, around 3/4th of Irish people were Catholic, despite attempts on the behalf of England to convert them to Protestantism. These attemps first took the form of the establishment of the Church of Ireland, but after disappointing results, the mother country turned to force. In the 18th century, if you were Catholic in Ireland and under the rule of England, you could not:
-hold office or practice law
-bear arms or serve as an officer in any armed forces
-buy land
-serve an appreticeship
-attend school
-go abroad to study
-make woollen cloth
-export glassware
(The last two were obviously tied to efforts to strengthen England economically, much like the Navigation Acts.)

As further enticement to convert, any land owned (I'm not sure how this works with the "not buying land" thing) would be divided equally between any male heirs upon death. If, however, one son then decided to convert to Protestantism, then the land would automatically default to him.

These laws, though perhaps not enforced as stringently as they could have been, nonetheless contributed to the strong animosity between Ireland and England rooted in religious discrimination. As this book puts it, "Any hope of Irish subjects becoming reconciled to English rule had been soured by religious discrimination and the Roman Catholic Church had become identified in the minds of many people with the oppressed Irish nation."

Source: Percival, John. The Great Famine: Ireland's Potato Famine 1845-51. Viewer Books. New York, New York. 1995.

This entry feeds into this entry.

A Letter (?) on Multiraciality

Dear Ms. Cogito et Histoire de la Folie,
Wow, that's a mouthful. I remember, some number a weeks ago, when you and I were discussing your non-fiction essay in which you discussed race. I remember your spot-on segment about your friend you met while on vacation and we somehow came to discuss the very Time cover which you referenced in your post. I think you sum your opinion, one I agree with, up rather nicely when you say, "One day, far in the future, our concept of race will become so dilute that racial discrimination will be virtually impossible.
Tradition will be maintained, but culture individually innovated."

The one point which I take issue with is this. You wrote that, "In fact, that racially plural, digital face does not represent the people of the future; we're here right now, and guess what? We've always been here." While I agree that "We are here right now," is true, stating that multiraciality is not so much for the future but rather for the present, the absoluteness of "We've always been here" bothered me slightly.

The more I think I about it, the less I realize I know. My sense of the history of multi or biraciality is quite limited. Specifically, I think of the terms mestizo and mulatto created at the time of the conquistadores. My mind then moves onto the children between slaves and slave owners, like those of Thomas Jefferson. More recently I think of Nazism, Hitler, and the value he placed on Aryan children, leading to what are called "Lebensborn children," lebensborn meaning "Source of Life." Essentially that Nazis sought out and relocated "racially pure" children who would be able to repopulate Germany during the Third Reich. (Interesting subject. For more read here and here).

I forget what my point was, but I also remembered Sudie last year talking about Loving v. Virginia, a few days after Mildred Loving had died. I guess all I'm trying to say is that history seems to have a pattern of fighting against multiraciality, so perhaps Time was trying to convey this sense of a growing acceptance? Though, one only need look around the internet, googling "Aryan children" should do it, to find some truly horrific people completely against any "mixing."

Ethnic Cleansing and the Future

Danielle's blog post about ethnic cleansing reminded me of a question posed to us in class, which I cannot remember exactly but basically said "Will this ever stop?"

Leigh responded by saying that sure, eventually yes, which I agreed with. While discussing French-Algerian-Italians, I thought a lot about biraciality, a group of people who are just being recognized on official forms (think college applications). Then I thought about the our children's generation. Bi might become Quad and so on until it is impossible to identify solely on ethnicity. In this way, I think ethnic cleansing (thankfully) has a very dim future. Although there are those who still preach "pureness of bloodline" and reject inter-racial marriage, I feel like the majority of people could be moving away from this traditional, purist view.

But then I thought of religion. Will the divisions in religion undergo the same syncretism? Possibly? There is a growing amount of people nowadays who have been born into two different religions. This, of course, is only in my small version of the world, namely the SF Bay Area where religion is not of the highest importance in most people's minds. I can see, though, religious disagreement becoming the vehicle through which violence is conducted. Already, in several places this is happening, for when we can no longer draw boundaries of blood, what can we fight about?

Research Paper: Post Three

Given that Moorish influence in Spain ended too early to be considered a viable option for this research paper, I've decided to dedicate my portion of this research project to Ireland. More specifically, English control of Ireland. To begin with, here are some dates selected from a timeline (found here)

450 Saint Patrick converts Ireland to Christianity.
1169 Norman Invasion, puts Ireland under nominal English control.
1315 Edward Bruce, brother of Robert I of Scotland, attempts to drive English out of Ireland.
1536 Henry VIII of England begins reconquest of Ireland under Protestant rule.
1594-1603 Nine Years War: English conquer Northern Ireland and assume control of Ulster.
1641 Catholic Uprisings during English Civil War; massacre of Protestants in Ulster.
1649 Oliver Cromwell invades Ireland—infamous Siege of Drogheda.
1688-1691 Williamite War in Ireland, following the "Glorious Revolution" in Britain.
1691 Penal laws enforced which oppress, dispossess Irish Catholics.
1782 Henry Grattan establishes independent Irish Parliament.
1798 Irish rebellion.
1801 Ireland (unwillingly) merged into the "United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland";
1829 Catholics allowed to vote.
1893 Parnell's Home Rule Bill defeated by small majority.
1916 Easter Rising in Dublin, raises sympathy for Irish Rebels.
1919-1921 Irish War of Independence.
1922 Partition of Ireland: Formation of Irish Free State.

-More information on St. Patrick: here and here
-Norman Invasion: here and here
-Obviously, the conflict between Protestantism/Catholicism came to a head under the reign of Henry VIII, who founded the Church of England. This conflict led to and enduring rivalry between the two religions manifesting themselves in persecution and oppression.
-Nine Years War: here
-Siege of Drogheda: here and here
-Williamite War: here and here
-More info to follow on penal laws in Ireland
-Parnell/Home Rule: here, here, and here

Art, Art, Art

I really enjoyed Friday's class in which we discussed each of the pieces/clips we had chosen on our postwar culture Easter egg hunt. If any of you are interested, here is the link to Serge Poliakoff's wikipedia page and here are several of his pieces.

In particular, this one caught my eye:

(source)
Poliakoff, born in 1900 in Moscow, moved to France and in 1962 became a French Citizen. Previously he traveled through Istanbul and Germany, playing guitar and balalaika. He also was in contact with Kandinsky, which perhaps would explain why his art seems to have more structure to it than that of Abstract Expressionists. Kandinsky, who died before the end of WWII, had been a member of Der Blaue Reither (The Blue Rider) which we studied in Civ. (It also included Franz Marc if that jogs anyone's memory).

But, to get back to Poliakoff. I was looking at a few more of his pieces when I saw the one above and immediately thought of the France. Could this be Poliakoff's representation of the flag? I immediately found a picture of the flag, realized that white is on the left of red, and deflated a bit inside. Why was I so eager to impart meaning on this work? Why can't I look at it and be simply absorbed in it the same way that I can with a Rothko (who while not a self-defined expressionist, was a colorfield painter, put under the umbrella of Abstract Expressionism).

I think it's hard for me to accept that a piece of art can simply not mean or represent anything, which is more than a bit odd, considering I really love Dadaism. Looking at other pieces by Poliakoff, I see faces and cliffs and falling rocks, and I'm aware that I'm not experiencing the pieces in the way they were meant to be viewed, understood, and valued.

It's this attachment to meaning and representation which Abstract Expressionism sought to unseat, and thought perhaps they were successful at the time, introducing an attitude which did not scrutinize a piece for the sake of decoding it, it's clear that now the attitude has disappeared, in me at least. This saddens me a bit, but examining art, it's clear that one style period is often the response to a preceding one. But this leaves me wondering what style period we're in right now. What is it responding to? More importantly, why?

Existentialism and The Second Sex

Although I missed class on Tuesday afternoon, I shall attempt to discuss existentialism as I understand it (from the mini catch-up-lecture and readings). I found this website particularly helpful (there are also some pretty cool diagrams which you should all look at, and when I say cool I mean stick-figure, flow-chart cool)

In reading JED's post regarding the de Bauvoir and Camus excerpts, I found myself disagree with his assertion that neither were "really existentialist."

I came to class on Wednesday psyched to talk about the de Bauvoir stuff, and when I heard the word "existentialism" I instantly became confused, whether from not really knowing what "existentialism" meant or because I saw no conceivable connection between the topic and The Second Sex. On further thought, I have reconciled the two in the following manner.

Focusing on the tenet that "Existence precedes essence," which we broke down in class as "You are what you do." Although we exist, we "construct our nature or our essence through our actions" (source). In terms of de Bauvoir: women exist. They define themselves by their attachment to men, or rather, the dominating male defines the female. Women "do" nothing, actively that is. All they have won in their struggle for equality is not really won at all. Rather, it has been given to them by men and women accept that as enough. Until women actively organize and take their due rights, they will not have constructed their nature or essence.

"Hot N Cold"

And you always think
Always speak
Cryptically....
'Cause you're hot and you're cold
You're yes then you're no
You're in and you're out
You're up and you're down.

I couldn't really resist connecting the Cold War with Katy Perry, though that in itself is probably degrading on many levels.

The ideas that have most commonly been bandied about by blog entries in our community (like here and here and here) involve degrees of guilt and attempts to gauge "the enemy." I imagine it must have been extremely disconcerting for the Americans in the post-WWII era to realize that the USSR was also developing nuclear weapons (as well as the aircraft needed to carry them). What had been our weapon suddenly was up for grabs, becoming only one facet of competition between the USA and USSR during Cold War, one "race" of many. My personal understanding of the Cold War and the non-usage of nuclear weapons in the conflict boils down to a lot of what Danielle talked about. Similarly, I disagree completely with the statement that, "Having lots and lots of nukes sitting around means that probabilistically, there is a strong likelihood they will be used eventually." I think that one thing which prevented and continues to prevent nuclear warfare is the conscience. Earlier in class we discussed the Nuremberg trials as a way to burn a sense of shame and an urgent need to not forget the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. Hiroshima/Nagasaki act as their own. While the number of people killed in the two atomic blasts did not exceed the number of people killed in prior firebombings of Japan, the lasting effects both psychologically and physically are burned into our memories. Thus, neither we nor the USSR felt particularly trigger happy. (I also concede that paranoia about each other's weaponry might have delayed/prevented any dropping of atomic bombs as well as fueled the countries' desires to have the most powerful, most lethal weapons, certainly greater than their opponents.)

To wrap up, I offer you this video courtesy of YouTube. One thing my mom remembers from her youth were this duck and cover drills. (The video gets more interesting around 2:00)

Research Paper: Post Two

Moorish Influence in Spain
The term "Moor" can be used to describe the Muslims, Berber and Arab, who conquered the Iberian Peninsula in year 711. Their influence in Spain, or Hispania lasted until the year 1492 when Granada, the last Moorish stronghold in the Iberian Peninsula, was reconquered by the Christians. As some sources notes, 1492 was a big year for Spain. The Moorish part of Spain was called Al-Andalus ("Land of the Vandals), which later became Andalusia, a name still used today.

The Moors transformed the Iberian Peninsula in a matter of centuries, turning their small, squalid, dirty, and medieval chunk of land into a land rich in agriculture and culture. The arches in La Mezquita are recognizable to any Civling, and are a visible mark of the Moors in Spain. Founded in 785, the Mezquita "became the second most important place of worship in the Muslim world after Mecca" (source here).

In 1010, Al-Mansur died and the Umayyad Caliphate was broken up into 20 taifas, ["an independent Muslim-ruled principality, usually an emirate or petty kingdom, though there was one oligarchy"(source)], ending united rule of Al-Andalus (source.

The transient monarchy of Spain led to increased conflicts between the Moors and Catholics, culminating in a successful blockade of Granada in 1492 by Los reyes católicos (Ferdinand and Isabel) which broke the Moors century long hold on the Iberian Peninsula.

Additional source: here.

Research Paper: Post One

As Andra announced previously in her blog post, our group (me, her, Laura) has decided on a topic. While initially we had thrown around the idea of tracing the various instantiations of concentration camps (Bohr War, Gulag, Nazi), the topic panned out to be rather depressing, albeit interesting, so we decided to do something else we could all more or less agree upon. Enter: Occupied Nations and their Ensuing Development.

Andra is taking the Baltic States under the USSR while Laura and I are going to do some rougher research first of other potential areas of concentration, which Andra mentioned as being Moorish Spain, Ireland, Poland, and the Spanish Netherlands. Our concern with Moorish Spain is that it might not be "modern" enough, but only further research will really decide the matter.

Nuremberg Trials

Well...I just spent maybe half an hour or so exploring pictures I could potentially post here from the Nuremberg Trials. In my searches, I stumbled upon this site which disputes the credibility of charges of inhumane medical experiments being carried out by Nazi doctors. In fact, it does much more than that. It says that the Jews completely fabricated the charges and that people hung because of these lies. Further exploration of the site led me to a page which depicts Auschwitz as a livable, humane place complete with an orchestra, dental facilities, a brothel, and a daycare center. This is really what makes my stomach turn. I honestly feel sick to my stomach, but I'll try to say something.

Today in class, we discussed the Nuremberg Trials: their legitimacy, rationale, and effects afterward. I tend to agree with Liz on this one when she says that, "Though we're uncomfortable with the "victors" deciding what is right and what is wrong, the horrible crimes involved were not just German crimes, but human ones, and thus the determination and trial of these crimes should involve the whole world." What still irks me is the fact that "the whole world" was really only the victorious countries. Briefly in class we debated the hypocrisy in trying Nazis for war crimes when the U.S. itself had firebombed civilians in Germany and dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Sadly, while ideologically it's completely outrageous that they/we shouldn't have been put on trial for this, it's not as if the tribunal was about to point the finger at its creating countries. So the tribunal at Nuremberg wasn't a "world tribunal," so the system was imperfect. Does that make it any less necessary?

Russia Milking It Big Time

Regarding: Grace's post questioning: "Was it fair for the Soviet Union to receive control over Eastern Europe?"

Today in class, the phrase that came to mind when thinking about Stalin and Russia post-WWII was "milking it." I can't deny that I don't milk things. If I'm sick at home I like to be fussed over a little, brought cold compresses, gingerale, etc. But that milking it is more than slightly forgivable. My mother doesn't especially mind buying me soda or making up ice bags. When looking at the matter of an entire swathe of Eastern Europe, I assumed it'd be hard to say the same of the U.S. giving up the territories to the Soviets. Oddly, it doesn't seem like it was.

As far as our studies have taken us, I can't remember reading anything about how distraught the U.S. or Britain was to give up Latvia, Estonia, and other countries which would become a buffer between East and West, this time imposed by the Communist East. In the Percentages Agreement made by Churchill and Stalin, the two simply carved up Southern Eastern Europe into spheres of influence.

Russia's main claim was that they "deserved" Eastern Europe as a form of both protection in the future (from Western conflicts) and a sort of reparation for their sustained losses in WWII, and while I definitely agreed that Russia essentially won on the Eastern front by virtue of pure numbers and willingness to suffer through the war effort, it seems extremely odd that the Allies wouldn't have argued more for control in Eastern Europe. But perhaps I am missing something.

How...appeasing.

There's something about the name "Chamberlain" which conjures up greatness. Perhaps, and most likely, this is just some bizarre obsession I have with Anglo-Saxon names, but I'll admit that "Chamberlain" really can't compare with "Churchill." There's just something so solid about "Churchill."

Anyways, this is kind of spinning off of this post which discusses the Munich Agreement.

To me, the idea of appeasement is very much like the following cartoon:

(Source here)

Essentially, one person attempts to pacify another person via concessions. I was actually reminded in class of taking a dog biscuit and tossing it across the room in hopes that my very large, ill-behaved Rhodesian Ridgeback might follow the treat and leave me alone. I think this is what Chamberlain attempted to do. He was very much concerned with preserving peace...at least in Western Europe, specifically Britain. Czechoslovakia was the doggie biscuit, meant to distract Hitler, but while it did (perhaps) create more time for the armament of Britain (and France), what happened is best shown in this cartoon:

(Source here) Click to enlarge.

However, I do acknowledge that appeasement can be a rational decision, and even an intelligent one (for all the reasons we discussed in class).

To hurt another human...

Today I was reminded of when I used to play "Mercy" with my friends. It's a game in which one person grabs onto another, wrenches his/her body around and tries to inflict enough pain so that the attacked might utter "Mercy!" with a pained fervency. I then thought of "Indian burns" in which someone grabs onto the forearm of another person with both hands and wrenches the skin of the forearm in opposite directions, causing a burning sensation and making the skin red and painful. (This is better described here.) Even now, simply trying to explain these simple, common elementary (well sure, probably middle school too) "games," I'm kind of shocked at how horrible they sound. The whole point of the game was to assert one's "power" over another person; it was a battle of tolerance. Who could "take" the most pain? Who could inflict the most pain? But who won?

The most pervading question from today's class was, "How could any human inflict such suffering to another?" And it wasn't just the SS or the Hösses of the world who inflicted the pain. It was also every single civilian who knew what was going and pretended they didn't, everyone who ignored what was happening around them, everyone who turned their backs on their neighbors and let the Holocaust happen. Debriefing class with a friend, he mentioned The Milgram Experiment, which I'd never heard of. To summarize it:

-Three people: "Experimenter", "Teacher", and "Learner"

-The Experimenter explained that the Teacher and the Learner were a part of a study to examine memory and learning situations.

-The Teacher and Learner were placed in two different rooms. The Teacher was given lists of words he/she needed to teach to the Learner.

-If the Learner failed to learn the words, an electrical shock would be administered to the Learner by the Teacher. This shock would increase by 15 volts for every missed word.

-The Teacher was shocked prior to commencing the experiment so he/she would know the level of pain the Learner would be exposed to at first.

-If the Teacher showed reluctance to shock/punish the Learner, the Experimenter would intervene, saying, in this order:

1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

-If after all four verbal interventions, the Teacher still wished to stop, the experiment would end. The experiment also ended when the voltage of the shock reached 450 three times.

-The Learner would bang on the wall after several shocks had been administered, complain of a heart condition, scream, and then fall silent.

-The experiment was designed to test, "The willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience" (Ibid.).

Thankfully, the Learner was actually an actor, the sounds of shocks were pre-recorded, and no harm was caused by the experiment (unless you count the psychological trauma induced on the Teacher)
The results were shocking.

Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors as to what they thought would be the results. All of the poll respondents believed that only a few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Only one participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks before the 300-volt level.

So, what might be taken from this? We are more prepared and capable to hurt another human than we'd ever like to think, even with our consciences.

Yes We Can!

I was riding in the passenger seat of the car yesterday with my father and offhandedly remarked, "I really like Hitler," which I immediately corrected to, "I mean I really like learning about Hilter." And I do. From an early age, I became morbidly fascinated by the Holocaust, the concentrations camps, and the mass conductor of it all. I laughingly blamed it on my parents taking me to the Holocaust Memorial museum in DC when I was 6. (I could probably talk this out Freudian-style, but I digress).

In any case, I will go on to talk about the compelling manner in which Hitler addressed the masses.


Like Danielle, it gives me the chills. Not just the guttural German or the arms stuck out in 45 degree angles, but the fact that his voice demands that you listen to him. To add onto this, the crowd is absolutely captivated. Faces light up in jubilation. Yes! they say, Yes! This is what we've been waiting for! And in some way I cannot help but be reminded of the faces of people on Election Night in Chicago.



Flags waving, faces stretched into wide grins, surely we look less uniform, but the similarities are there. I'm not saying that Obama is akin to Hitler, but both share an uncanny power over the people, a power to inspire hope (I've never associated that word with Hitler before) in their people. For that matter, while our disillusionment with the government over the war in Iraq etc. was significantly less than that in pre-Nazi Germany, Obama and Hitler both seized the idea of "Yes We Can!"

Completely aside from this, I just realized that while Hitler championed eugenics and the creation of an Aryan super-race, he himself had dark hair. Oh, the irony.

If things had been different...

Regarding Grace's post here.

I'm not sure when I learned that Hitler had originally wanted to become an artist. I'm sure it's the same day when I contemplated what might have been different if he had succeeded. I particularly like this article put out a few years back by The New Yorker. To summarize it, basically Hitler went to Vienna with the dream of pursuing art. Twice he was rejected based on his "unsatisfactory" drawing skills. Often he slept on the streets, keeping company with Jews, which, at the time, he didn't not appear to have a problem with. Indeed, Hitler (the article suggests), picked up anti-Semitism in Vienna. He also was a fan of Wagner (who, we learned in Western Civ, was less than fond of Jews).

But, while residing in Vienna and absorbing the cities' politics (as well as incorporating them into his own) may have laid the ground work for Hitler's later life, the war made Hitler, well, Hitler. As we discussed in class, he was a war hero, awarded the Iron Cross twice (more information on the Iron Cross here).

Grace says:

Art typically serves as a free expression of oneself in which one attempts to depict a personal emotion, event or opinion--an artist's work ultimately defines him or her and serves as the thread that pieces the artists life together.

I would argue that the idea of this version of art didn't come about until the 19th century really, perhaps even the late 19th century. Previously art hadn't been focused on free expression, subjective opinion, or emotionality. I'd imagine that Hitler as a leader, led as he might have painted, communicating similar ideas of absolute power, an infatuation with the classical, and strains of anti-Semitism/anti-Communism. However, the effect that a painting might have is minute in comparison to Hitler wielding the power of an entire country.

To see some of Hitler's watercolors and postcards, click here.

Oh, the terror of it all!

Responding to: Andra's post, which responded to Nate's.

Industrialization did not necessarily need a communist regime to increase. As far as I can tell, there can be no connection made between Stalin's ideologies and the increase in industrialization. Thus, the two do not need to go hand in hand. Industrialization and the improvement of Russia as a whole could have occurred without the terror, which makes it completely and utterly not understandable and unjustifiable to me.

When I think about communism, I never associate it with industrial progress; rather, I view it as a political system beyond manufacturing/materialistic/competitive capitalism. Rather than thinking that "Industrialization did not necessarily need a communist regime to increase," I marvel at the fact that Stalin was able to apply communism in such a way that it did boost industrialization. While this in no way justifies the mass killings and virtual enslavement of 10% of Russia's population, there is a connection between "Stalin's ideologies and the increase in industrialization." As I see it, a main focus of Stalin's was to ensure the survival of the "first communist state." Unlike Trotsky, Stalin did not think a world-wide revolution was necessary, but he still knew that Russia could, at any point, be threatened by other European powers. Thus, the increase in industrialization grew Russia's self-sustainability and prepared it for future conflicts. While I cannot agree with the tactics used by Stalin to bring about industrialization, I cannot deny that Russia needed to be brought up to speed in terms of industrialism if they wished to compete on the world stage.

In related news, I found this article particularly interesting. It's from January 1937 and discusses Trotsky, Stalin, and about Stalin's forced rise to power.

Trotsky urged the industrialization oi Russia, and that was "Trotskyism" until he had been kicked out and it became Stalinism. Trotsky urged regimentation oi [sic] the Russian peasantry by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the peasants to be uprooted from their little holdings and forced onto vast collective farms with tractor; replacing horses and Moscow able at any moment to shut off the gasoline if the peasants got obstreperous. That too was "Trotskyism," bitterly denounced by Stalin until, Trotsky having been ousted, it became and is today Stalinism. (page 6)

The Kulak and the Intellectual

Regarding Leigh and Elizabeth's back and forth here, here and here.

I thought Liz raised an especially interesting point in saying that kulaks were treated as a mass of people while intellectuals were targeted individually. I agree with this statement and furthermore would like to suggest that the manner in which they were dealt spoke of Stalin's view of them. Specifically, I shall quote from the reading "Problems of Agrarian Policy in the USSR: Soviet Collectivization."

There is another question which seems no less ridiculous: whether the kulak should be permitted to join the collective farms. Of course not, for he is a sworn enemy of the collective-farm movement. Clear, one would think.

The last four words are positively dripping with condescension. In class I laughed, but this feeling is now reduced to something between amusement and horror. In my understanding, you could absolutely, under no conditions, be a kulak under Stalin–there was simply no place for them in his vision for Russia. Hence, the decimation of them as a class, without regard for them as individuals. Intellectuals, I believe, were not doomed from the start. As long as the intellectual were weak enough that he posed no threat (at all, no seriously) to Stalin (paranoid much?) and supported (or at least appeared to, convincingly) Stalin without reservation, execution need not be in the cards.

(But, upon re-reading my last point, I have to admit that no one was really safe under Stalin, including his "allies." Perhaps this is why he was, and still is, so terrifying.)

Total War

Following this train of discussion: Charlie to here and here.

The question at hand: Total War = beneficial?

Response:
Even before completely reading Charlie's post on total war, I couldn't help but think about the war in Iraq. Namely, how it is an example of not being in total war. For me personally, total war means that you are not solely mobilizing troops. Rather, you mobilize (in some sense) your entire population. Undeniable Total War has its downsides like its tendency to burn out quickly. The intense burst of nationalism is nice while it lasts, but eventually gives way to despair, similar to what troops might feel on the front lines. While I'm in no way asserting that a factory worker experiences the same trauma etc. that a soldier does, total warfare connects the two "fronts," of the battle and the home.

Could the war in Iraq have been reduced in duration had some form of total war been implemented? Certainly the displeasure brought on by having to sacrifice something for the war effort (tinned vegetables, fuel, tax breaks) would have trickled down to the cause, the war, with people constantly being reminded that their country is at war.

For me, the issue is not so much "awareness" in the sense that civilians understand the true nature of the conflict, but that they know that, to be frank, while working in a factory basically sucks for them, it's sucking out there in the trenches a whole lot more for the troops.

They All Want to Change the World

In support of my fellow blogger Andra's opposition (here) to JED's assertion that "[The Bolsheviks] are almost like Mensheviks in that they waited for the perfect moment to start a revolution instead of forcing a revolution." (here): I have to agree with Andra on this one. Wasn't the thing that differentiated Mensheviks/Bolsheviks basically that the former thought the society would progress naturally toward Communism while the latter believed that a revolution could be ignited by a person/group of people/incident? The Mensheviks weren't waiting for a "perfect moment" during which they might assist Russia on its way to Communism. They thought that when Russia achieved a fully mature capitalist society it would (following traditional Marxism) begin to shift towards Communism. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, insisted that the moment was NOW, that Russia was READY, and truly seized (and "encouraged" others to seize) their moment amidst the chaos and mass discontentment during WWI.

Two Anastasias, Two Different (?) Times

The rate of blogging seems to have drastically slowed this week, but nonetheless, I'll respond to/jump off off a few points from Leigh's lovely post.

First, just to address Lenin's Hanging Order (1908), I had a moment after I finished reading it when I laughed. Why you might ask? At his instructions to kill 100 kulaks etc. to make a public show? Certainly not. Rather, I was wryly amused by how he signed the order. "Yours, Lenin." The Post-script was also a nice touch. There was such a juxtaposition of the serious (the killing bits) and the, almost, quotidian (his lack of formality).

Secondly, I was especially intrigued by Leigh's connection between the present and the past:

The violence of the Bolsheviks would become a commonly used tactic in the USSR and modern-day Russia. Although there is no longer a Kulak class, the intellectual targets have remained the same over the years.

Especially after having read Danielle's post which, ever so briefly mentions Anastasia, I couldn't help but think of an article I read about a month or so ago. Though I can't find the exact one, I found a few related ones here, here, here, and here.

Essentially, in late January of this year, Anastasia Baburova (Nastya), a Russian journalist, was lethally shot while walking in the company of human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov (the intended target). When a gunman walked up to them and shot Markelov in the head, killing him instantly, Baburova tried to attack/pursue the gunman who then shot her. She later died at a hospital. Sadly, she's not alone, nor are political assassinations a rarity in Russia today. (In a similar case in 2006, Anna Politkovskaya, another journalist from the same paper Nastya worked at, was found dead in an elevator. More here.)

What I find the most intriguing here are some parallels drawn between Russia in 1917 and Russia now.
-A government very intent on remaining in power (applicable both to Tsar Nicholas II and the provisional government. But look how it worked out for both of them.
-The targeting of intellectuals, in this case journalists and a lawyer.
-An out of touch, ruthless (and desperate?) upper class. According to the owner of the Novayagazeta (the paper at which Nastya and Anna worked), there is:

A tiny elite of officials, politicians and businessmen, who together have amassed vast fortunes running in to hundreds of billions....[who] will do anything to defend their wealth and power.

Last fall, I took Russian Lit with Scott and his Russian friend came in to talk with us about St. Petersburg. While she pointed out many similarities of the city to other Western European cities and was especially proud of signs of modernism (iPods, computers, etc.), Scott also gave us his impression which was far less...perhaps "optimistic" is the word.

And while it's interesting to make these connections, it's disappointing that even in the face of change, some things still remain the same.

(If you'd like to see the website of Novayagazeta, the paper where the murdered journalists worked, it's available in English here. They have a memorial up for Anastasia Baburova and Stanislav Markelov right now, including a fairly graphic picture of the murder scene. Not too much blood.)

Over the Top

Tagging onto JED's post, I'd have to agree that the military tactics in WWI seemed utterly ridiculous. In fact, they seemed "over the top." Ever obsessed with etymology, I wondered if there was perhaps a connection between the colloquial phrase and the battle term in which men were supposed to haul themselves out of 6-8 foot deep trenches and run headfirst at the enemy. Unsurprisingly, there was.

To quote from this webpage:

Meaning: To an excessive degree; beyond reasonable or acceptable limits.

Origin: In the First World War the phrase was used by the British to describe the infantry emerging from the safety of their trenches to attack the enemy across open ground....More recently, with allusion back to the WWI usage, the phrase has come to describe excessive or foolhardy actions."

Excessive of foolhardy indeed! The "over the top" tactic utilized in the trench warfare during WW I makes little sense to me. In theory, sure it could work, but after the first few thousand soldiers died, shouldn't the generals have caught on? It's hard to fathom exactly what their reasoning may have been, actually impossible for me. But, to borrow Jonathan's expression, foot soldiers certainly composed "an army of lions." While I'll hold my judgment on the leaders being "sheep," I can't help but think back to the clip of the movie we watched in class today. The men, in the trenches, the generals sitting far away from the attack trench saying something to the effect of:

Person 1: "The village is heavily armed with machine guns."
Person 2: "They're a good regiment. They'll get through."

No wonder troops eventually became demoralized. If they were dying, being picked off by machine guns and flying shrapnel, was it only because they weren't good enough?

There was something oddly captivating about the short clips we watched. Despite the constant explosions and black smoke flying up, despite the minutes of watching men lying low in their trench, it was the moment when the clock hit 9 (I think?) and it was time to go "over the top." 50 yards to 1 mile is what Western Civilizations said. That distance filled with barb wire, with no shelter, just one long armorless sprint towards your enemy. Now, that's over the top.

Freud, Fred, and other things

While attempting to figure out how to summarize the extraordinarily brief last week of class, I came across a series of posts made by Andra (here and here) and Danielle (here and here). They both talk about Freud (and Nietsche), but more specifically in how each interacted with his epoch.

Danielle specifically mentions, "Overall, both Freud, Nietzsche, and all the rebellious artists provoked the minds of lots of lower, middle, and upper class people; however, "millions undoubtedly went about the business of life untroubled by the implications of evolutionary theory, content to believe as they had believed before" (857)," also considering that, "We are all influenced by the present, but also by the past."

Andra, posting before Danielle, had only examined the implications of the present time on Freud, but had done so admirably.

To their conversation, I add the following:
-Specifically when talking about Nietsche and religion, Andra felt that, " Nietzsche and a lot of the critics of Christianity today hold this idea that the religion consists of only bible-hugging, born-again, fundamentalists." While I think that some people today do hold this view (erroneously), it perhaps held a grain more of truth when Nietzsche wrote. While not being "bible-hugging" or "born-again", certainly at that time religion was an integral part of life. While today many of us belong to no particular faith, I feel like in the past most people subscribed to some form of theology.

-Danielle is correct when she argued that our past affects us as well as our present. This also caused me to think of a questioned posed in class this week. Did Freud have to come after Darwin? It's a lot like the infamous Chicken/Egg question, but I feel like this one might have a more conclusive answer. For me, yes, Darwin rightly preceded Freud. Darwin revealed that we are not in control of our evolution (physical form), which, should someone have told me this, I might reply, "Well, I still have my mind!" To this, Freud would heartily chortle and slowly say, "No...." perhaps while stroking his beard thoughtfully. The acknowledgment that man is slave to primitive impulses acted to deepen the blow already inflicted. If Freud had made his claim earlier than Darwin, I doubt it would have had such a grave impact, since, after all, why would man (being the Crown of Creation) have this violent, sexual urges?

On Freud (and Le Bon)

While reading JED's post on Freud, I found myself thinking back to Western Civ during sophomore year. Then, when I reached the second paragraph, Jonathan supplied the name which I had been troubling myself to remember. Le Bon

I agree that there's a flaw in Freud's attempt to say that the actions of a group can be taken as proof of an individual's nature, disregarding the effect of a crowd/mob mentality. However, what interested me was trying to apply Freud's theories of the id, ego, and superego to the situations of the Huns, Mongols, Crusades, or World War I. If he argues that these atrocities exemplify the violent, aggressive nature of humans, then they would be succumbing to their ids? Did the ego or superego even exist in these situations? Certainly, they're not things that have evolved, since he considers the recent world war along with more ancient history. Could the crowd/herd effect in fact act to empower the id? Could it weaken the ego? If in fact, suddenly everyone around you is raping/pillaging/plundering, doesn't this make it immediately more socially acceptable to do the same?

The Rise of the Newsies

It was interesting that while reading about the rise of newspapers in the 19th century, I could also go online and read about how the SF Chronicle could be closing (article here). A further connection? William Randolph Hearst, mentioned in Western Civilizations as a "commercial publisher[]....[who] hastened to serve the new reading public" started The Hearst Corp. which controls the Chronicle today.

I couldn't help but examine the similarities and differences between now and then, in regards to literacy and mass media outlets. As the issue of how to "save" the newspaper is fast becoming critical, much of the debate focuses upon how to continue to earn revenue. As mentioned in the book, "Advertisements drastically lowered the costs of the mass-market newspapers, enabling even workers to purchase one or two newspapers a day" (858). Advertising has since driven the newspaper industry, the gasoline which allows the car to continue driving. To extend the metaphor further, now it appears as though the gasoline/oil reserves are no longer effective. What will be the hybrid or green technology for the newspaper though?

A Russian Debate

Ah, the joys of debating!

I was finally able to put to use my previous knowledge of the Bolsheviks (courtesy of Russian Literature with Scott) in a constructive way. After reading Charlie's blog post which (I feel) accurately portrays the debate that went on during 3rd period, I have arrived at much the same conclusion. It was sort of inevitable that the Bolsheviks would win the debate, though I do have much respect for the Octoberists. More importantly, their paramount task of attempting to convince us that the Tsar would magically surrender his power made me think about a conversation we had a few weeks ago while talking about Italian nationalism, specifically, when talking about Garibaldi ceding power to the king in order to unify Italy. This is an example of a man surrendering power, even though he was not a "conservative absolutist ruler giving up power voluntarily to a liberal or socialist public." I still thought of him, while debating.

Similarly, as of late I've been thinking about communism and so-called "communist" countries which, somehow, have fallen by the wayside into despotism. Cuba. North Korea. China. All have moved away from traditional Marxist communism and I must wonder why. What changed? Wasn't the original intent of communism to give the government to the people? To give everything to the people? I think it's ironic that in removing capitalism (and the absolutist rulers) which stood in the way of the glorious communism, the very revolutionaries who sought to overthrow the system instead have managed to establish their very own dictatorships.

Tradition!

Interestingly, when titling this blog post, I instantly thought of "Fiddler on the Roof". I planned on starting off with "Although my title is completely anachronistic", but when I Googled the musical, 'lo and behold, "Fiddler on the Roof is set in the small Jewish village of Anatevka, Russia, in 1905" (source here). How apt.

Both last night's reading and the debate today in class caused me to think a lot about tradition. Danielle's blog post questioned why a Tsar (Alexander II, III, or Nicholas II) didn't try to stave off revolution with reform. My admittedly weak answer is: tradition.

Specifically the book says, "Alexander II claimed his people had been nurtured on mystical piety for centuries and would be utterly lost without a strong autocratic system" (Western Civilizations, 844). I would agree with this. I see no other reason for the lack of reform and enhanced repressive tactics, than tradition. Russia had, more or less, always been governed by a single great leader (think Catherine or Peter the Great). Any previous time there had been stirrings of revolution (Decembrist Revolt), the autocrat had managed to put down the rebels. Why should this instance in the early 1900's have looked any different to the Tsar? Why would he have thought to reform or try a new tactic other than enhancing his level of control? Perhaps he did not realize the extent of popular discontent, or did not recognize that the people saw the loss of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) as a sign of his own weakness. In any case, Tsar Nicholas II elected to maintain tradition, and look where it got him.

Ironically, a similar situation was paralleled among the peasants. As we learned in class, they'd always thought of the Tsar as a father-like figure, to whom they could air their grievances and expect nominal change. Bloody Sunday in 1905 was a slap in the face. It broke the news that the Tsar was not their father, would not listen to them, and would not be swayed by 200,000 peasants protesting in St. Petersburg. Traditional beliefs had once again been misleading; however, for the peasants this violent wake-up call was not the end. This was really only the beginning.

Suffrage Movement

Piggybacking on a series of posts (1, 2, and 3).

Specifically: "Despite the seemingly monotony of such a life, women embraced their role, believing that being a good wife and mother was an honorable task whose successful completion was the mark of an elevated character." (here)

And: "Women during the 19th century remained very content with their Victorian roles, seeing themselves as the “angel in the house” securing – through the proper education of their children – the morality of future generations." (here)

I think it would be difficult to generalize and say that women "embraced" their role. I think that yes, they remained subservient, perhaps not out of pure unadulterated joy, but rather because that was expected. Previous discussion of the woman's role in society had always been conducted by men (think about the Reformation/Counter Reformation). The instances in which woman had stood up for themselves had been in a strictly religious realm (e.g. convents) which differed from the political arena.

During the 19th century I do not believe that women "remained very content with their Victorian roles"; I think that they simply were yet to become aware that they could change their situations. With the rise of machines during the second Industrial Revolution, the demands for new workers (in factories and healthcare etc.), women were called out of their homes. Their families needed food (though this had previously also been the case during the first IR) and employers were hiring women. Work was the spark to light the fuse of the suffragette movement. It acted as the "buy in" (think about poker) in the game of mass politics. Women worked. Men worked. (Most) men could vote. Why not women too?

2¢ of this week: imperialism

I figured I should try to jump on the train that is: Nate's response to Nick's summary which commented on Danielle's summary in a sort of response to Elizabeth's original post.

What specifically caught my attention was Danielle's comment about, "all of the empires ready to spread their wings and fairy dust all over the world (Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, the USA, etc...)." Slightly humorous, it definitely mirrored my feelings about imperialism as we've been talking about it all week. What made Britain's way "right"? Or France "better"? Or Germany more "civilized"? This "fairy dust" while perhaps seeming magical to the folks back home, had absolutely horrific effects on the imperialized nations, cultures, and peoples. I cannot even fathom the level of hypocrisy which European countries (PLUS the USA) exhibited during this time period. While marching down to Africa or India or China or wherever proclaiming, "We just want to help the poor [insert non-white "uncivilized" people here]!" they carried machine guns, political agendas, and an unquenchable thirst for diamonds, rubber, gold, and cheap labor.

Unsurprisingly, when one of the two goals (civilizing or self-strengthening) had to go away, it was always the former. Concentration Camps during the Boer War? It's for the good of the natives! Forced labor? We freed them from slavery! Imperialism, for "Westerners", was not about helping others; it was about helping themselves.

I think about Iraq, I think about Vietnam, I think about Israel/Palestine, and I wonder what the US is really doing.

Race and Imperialism

In reading about imperialism in Africa and Asia, I thought about how racism might have played a role. After the comparisons made last unit between serfdom and slavery, I specifically recalled Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 (more information here). Last year we learned about the rebellion and its after effects, one of them being a switch from indentured servitude to slavery. Although the rebellion included both groups of people, it became clear to colonists that it was much harder to oppress people who were of the same color, who spoke the same language. It was easier for servants to organize among themselves, but it also was a constant reminder to colonists that they were essentially enslaving their own "kind."

I bring up Bacon's Rebellion because it, perhaps unconsciously, involved race. Imperialism used race (or at least culture) as a justification. One need only point to Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" in which he calls the indigenous people, "Your new-caught sullen peoples,/ Half devil and half child." To begin with, "Your" is a possessive, obviously indicating some kind of ownership. "Caught" similarly indicates ownership, but also animalizes the people to some degree. You "catch" squirrels and small rodents. You don't "catch" people. "Half devil and half child" kind of speaks for itself.

I wonder, though, if, hypothetically the native Congolese or Egyptians or Chinese or Indians had looked similar to the imperializers, would there have been more dispute over imperialism? Would it have been harder to preach the "civilizing mission" propaganda to European civilians?

In this article, the author, Rodney D. Coates, points out how the race influences how "Race and color symbolism [emerge] in public discourse." It can be summed up in his assertion, " I would prefer to tell a white lie than a black one, be a white witch than a black one, practice white magic rather than black magic, be washed as white as snow than be as black as sin, and live in a white house with a white picket fence." He argues that "white" always connotes goodness, while black, yellow, red, and brown "are associated with being bad or evil." This, he says, "reflects a hierarchy of race in our society."

I'd be curious to know if this hierarchy of race was already intact during this second phase of imperialism or if it was indeed created at this point.

Imperialism

After learning about imperialism for the...third or fourth time...in my tenure at UHS I feel like I should be a professional on the matter. The reading explains surprisingly it well (Thanks, Coffin & Stacey). Essentially one power wishes to extend its sphere of influence (and bread basket, including "bread" of the coal, oil, and riches variety). In its pursuit of this task, it, inevitably, must go and crush ("save" or "help") other civilizations.

For a clearer, less subjective definition I shall simply quote class:
Since I left my binder at school, this will be inserted tomorrow.

Two things I got out of the reading were:

1. Lenin/Russia/Marxism. One of the things we (essentially) all agreed upon at the beginning of the year in MEH was that we shared a desire to learn more about Russia. After sliding through a few generations of Russian Literature with Scott Laughlin last semester I was pleased (if anyone can be pleased to read about Lenin) to find Lenin tucked into the reading. I'd never really considered Russian expansionism. I realize that in light of the recent Georgian conflict this makes me sound extremely uninformed, but I never really connected the Russian expansionism with the concept/time-period described in Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." Additionally, the connections between Marx's theory on the imminent self-destruction of capitalism were especially nice.

2. We're all being deluded by our governments. Honestly, it's not that I haven't realized this before, but be it the discussion in class or the reading's references to "self-image" (Western Civilizations, Coffin & Stacey, 792), I left school today feeling more...cynical. It kind of made me reflect on image and how we see ourselves today. For the most part, I love democracy. I was raised to love democracy, and unless a life-changing event occurs, I will most likely raise democracy-loving children. This doesn't, however, mean that I think everyone, like those poor, impoverished Iraqis, absolutely need a democracy. I look at other functioning forms of government, like Britain's constitutional monarchy, and see nothing inferior to what we have. Once again, I found myself returning to question nationalism, that pesky frenemy. This time, harnessed by the government, hitched to the wagon of imperialism, look what happened.

Making Connections (sort of)

Sitting down to write this blog post, I'm having a difficult time remembering what we covered in class this week. This worries me; however my notes tell me that we dabbled in such topics as: The Crimean War, Expansionism, and How to Make a Nation 101. From here I shall spring.

All three of the aforementioned topics are connected. So you're trying to unify, but you have internal problems...what better way to divert attention and encourage nationalism than a war? So that might be a reason to try to expand (not neglecting a generous acquisition of resources if you took say, Lorraine or something like the Prussians wanted). But of course, then expansion leads to a perceived upset in the balance of powers. While you, as a country (Russia), might be saying, "But it's (The Crimean Peninsula) only a little bit of land!", the rest of Europe glowers at you. Should you choose to press forward, then a war might erupt. Alliances you might have counted on could putter out (damn you Austrians) and you're left high and dry against the combined forces of both the established European powers and the unestablished but ambitious Piedmont-Sardinia.

I don't think it's an incredibly insightful comment to say that "Wow, everything's connected!" but nonetheless it's the one I'm making.

When examining the causal relationships between war, expansionism, and creating a nation I believe the following:
-Expansionism always causes war. Someone must have lived on/owned the land that you are so intent on taking.
-Creating a nation sometimes requires war(ring). Inevitably, people (like Metternich) will be archly opposed to the unification of your nation (in his case, Germany).
-Creating a nation sometimes requires expansionism. For the previously mentioned assertion that by expanding and therefore waging a war, a nation can further unify its citizens.

War lends identity to people. Rather than a conglomeration of several minority groups and religions, all of a sudden you're all insert nation's name heres.

I will acknowledge, however, the power of war to divide a nation as well, citing the past decade or so as an example.

The Pleasure of Hating (Other Nations)

"The pleasure of hating....makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands." -William Hazlitt, "On the Pleasure of Hating"

I often like nothing better than finding a connection between classes. In this case, the above quote arose from a personal essay that Non-Fiction was assigned to read. It automatically made me think about the making of nations, as discussed in Chapter 21 of Western Civilizations as well as Mazzini's "The Duties of Man".

Incredibly idealistic in tone, "The Duties of Man" left me feeling empowered. This is our duty. This is what remains to be done. Now, let's gitterdun. At the same time however, like Declan thoughtfully brought up, nationalism obviously acts as an exclusionary force.

William Hazlitt also shares this view. While loving your country is a wonderful thing, sometimes it can become part of a slippery slope. While I think we're all perfectly capable of distancing ourselves from national fervor and being 100% in agreement with everything our nation does (especially in respect to foreign policy), I feel like the average citizen or revolutionary during the mid-19th century might not have the liberty of being so well-informed.

Thus, I wonder if nationalism, while leading to fraternity and passion, also contributed to warfare during that time. In the Crimean War? How exactly did nationalism rear its head? Was it all positive?

Bismarck: Machiavelli Lover

As I was reading about Bismarck last night, I couldn't help but think that he reminded me of someone. Then, I read zak p's blog post and all became clear.

I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).

The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...

And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.

Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?

Nationalism: The Process

I feel like the theme this week in MEH was nationalism. Although revolution and 1848 were the stage on which the theme was invoked, the reading consistently discussed nationalism, specifically the ways it changed over the years and its effects on revolutionary (or reforming) efforts.

Charlie was adept enough to point out the wandering (and contradictory) nature of my last blog post. Since then I've reflected on it and decided that he's completely correct. As I was writing, I was simultaneously consulting the textbook and hence I believe that my point of view changed depending on the section of the book I was reading. The post was written previous to any class discussion on nationalism had taken place, which I think only further enriched my thoughts on the matter.

Probably the most interesting thing we did in class was debate the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation. Reading other blogs, I was particularly interested in what DK and DLemma had to say on the matter.

We adopt the notion of legitimacy practiced by the Concert of Europe, i.e. the notion that "if we say it's legit., then it's legit." Essentially, nationhood is a product of (1) the desire of the people to be a nation and (2) arcane and arbitrary exclusivity. You can't be a nation and let everyone in. -DK

Nationalism- helped unify groups of people that identified themselves as "German" or "Italian," but it also broke apart people from different ethnicities that were living in the same nation and therefore a tangled mess of alliances was created. -DLemma

I'd agree with both of them, and trying to reflect upon the matter of the U.S.A. as a nation, I must consider an issue they both bring up: ethnicity.

As DK notes, to create a nation, people must desire one. As DLemma says, a nation helps to unify, but it also helps to break apart. I feel, though, that creating a nation doesn't necessarily have to "break apart people" or create "a tangled mess of alliances." While this undisputedly happened in Europe during the mid-19th century, the U.S.A. was different. While Europe was struggling to unify many groups of people who had all lived on the land for years (like Israel/Palestine perhaps), the United States was created almost solely by the overwhelming majority of Caucasian immigrants. The indigenous people were entirely excluded from the process.

Now though, it's as if the process is happening in reverse. Italy started divided and now is united. The USA, arguably, started united and now is...divided (?). As Lollotte brought up in class, as globalization comes more and more into play, with the identity of the U.S.A. as an almost entirely Caucasian country definitely ceasing to exist, are we still a nation? With these different groups of people (much like the minority populations in Germany and Austria-Hungary), can we/do we manage to hold it together?