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?