A New Branch of History

Imperialism is a product of the greed and materialism found in the Industrial Revolution. However, it was so different as to introduce an entirely new dynamic of interactions amongst nations. The Industrial Revolution produced materialism by flooding society with a surplus of objects that were not essential for survival. Imperialism was a logical continuation of the Industrial Revolution, except now they exploited others in order to improve their own way of life. It was completely new in that it pushed the suppressed peoples of colonies to create new forms of government such as communism and socialism. An example was Vietnam which, under the harsh French colonial rule, forced people to turn to communism. Even today it remains a socialist nation. 

Imperialism and Us

Imperialism follows a trend of fighting for power that can be seen throughout history, though some of of the specifics are different.  All throughout history are examples of countries attempting to gain ultimate power. Napoleon, Hitler, Alexander the Great and many others. In the Ottoman Empire, Suleyman tried to conquer all of Europe for power. During imperialism, the British Empire attempted a similar thing, controlling strategic outposts all over the world not only for cultural influence, but also in order to fully manipulate trade, much like the Ottomans did within their own Empire. All these examples focus on control. A controversial idea is revolutions. Revolutions focus on overthrowing superiors and taking back control, and going forth with ideas they believe is right. 

While the general idea was the same in previous years and during imperialism, there were some key specific differences. For example treatment of native people in conquered lands was different because in previous history,  like during the Ottoman Empire, treatment of native people was a lot better than it was when the British went and conquered places like South Africa. The British treated these native people terribly, and did not allow them to have any power whatsoever in their own land. 

Imperialism (not to be confused with Star Wars)

Imperialism is yet another advancement in MWH because it follows the trends of our studies while simultaneously shaping the way we do things today. Along with past events such as the French Rev and the Industrial Rev, Imperialists used fear and superiority to maintain power over their laborers and subjects. This historical trend highlights the origins of human interaction and how it has shaped our world today. For instance, the Committee of Public Safety during the French Rev used the guillotine as a method of ensuring absolute loyalty from their citizens. The Third Estate leaders instilled fear in citizens to maintain power over them, as with the Imperialists leaders. In the Congo Free State, King Leopold cut off people's body parts to make sure that they would not disobey him. He too instilled fear to keep power. This highlights the way people interact when there is an inbalance of wealth or a difference in government policies. Economic incentives affect how people treat each other for the better or worse, as shown through imperialism and the demand for naural resources.

The Joys of Colonialism

Colonialism was the next logical step in history because all of its aspects have been seen before in the cultures we have studied. During the Industrial Revolution, a new atmosphere of "go and get 'em" permeated Europe.  It started a snowball effect on new ideas and worldwide trade. This effect gave the Europeans a new sense of confidence that led them to colonize far away countries. Also, the new technologies allowed them to easily communicate with each other. The Industrial Revolution created a new interest in trade in many countries, which followed with a need for resources and new trading destinations. This created a huge interest in connections with other countries, which led to European trading posts and people in many smaller, less-developed countries. Once these countries were occupied by the Europeans, they saw no reason to leave and began to colonize the new countries. 

Algeria Takes a Stand; its Opinion on Colonialism

Our group has decided that colonialism is the natural progression of history with one exception. Colonialism did not start inequality between human beings; as shown on our last DBQs concerning the Slave Trade.Colonization was not responsible for any major technological advancements; it was the testing ground for the innovations that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. The only new idea that came from colonization was that governments began to exploit weaker native peoples for their economic benefit instead of using colonization to gain political favor and power.
Inequality was already present between nations. It only made sense that, with all the new technology and weapons present in the country, the benefiting country would want to take over other countries. They colonized for power. This is a consistent theme throughout history. Slavery was an example of power. The richer and stronger country was able to take people from one country, and sell them in another. Not just any country can do this. The country had to be powerful. After the slave trade was banished, they needed to show their power in another way. With all their new technology, they decided to colonize.
Colonialism did not create any helpful new technologies. The innovations like breech loaders and steamboats from the Industrial Revolution allowed colonization to occur. The new technology that accompanied the Industrial REvolution made colonization affordable and safe; it gave colonists a huge edge over the natives that they were conquering.

Not only did the Industrial Revolution and the new technology and goods it spawned make colonization more affordable, but it made colonization immensely profitable. Countries like Britain and France wanted to gain power overseas. In fact some countries were experiencing some opposition to their government domestically and so by bringing in loads of cash through their economic exploitation of weaker countries they could gain more power. Countries were now turning their attention to colonialism and realized that power was better achieved through economics than politics. Smaller, less developed countries like the Congo, Algeria, Vietnam and South Africa had valuable resources that big and powerful countries could take advantage of. And after going through revolutions countries didn't want to have to continue dealing with issues in its own country.

Life in Colonial South Africa

-Spread of Diseases when British Immigrants & Dutch Invaded the colonies

-The Colored people were discriminated against on account of their working class status as well as their racial identity

-The Boer wars killed many women and children. British put them in concentration camps and killed over 26,000 dutch people. 

-Black communities then were able to recolonize land that was lost in conquest. Could regain some native land.

Social Classes:

1. British

2. Dutch

3. Native South Africans

-Racially Discriminated Against so they couldn't advance classes

- no technology so couldn't fight back

-White People felt they were superior b/c of colour and forced the natives out of their land b/c of their greed. 

Life Under Colonial Rule: Algeria

Napoleon III had an Arab dream.

At the beginning of French colonization in Algeria, the military was in charge. Depending on who was in charge of the military, there would be either limited of total occupation. The political rulers were fighting over how much freedom the Algerians would have. As France became more established in Algeria, the French people living in Algeria, called the colons, wanted more power. They brought the power away from the military.

When Napoleon III was in power, he had an "Arab dream." He really respected Algerian culture, and didn't want to impose too much French culture on them. A French defeat in Prussia caused his dream to be ruined.

The French hadn't thought about what to do with the native Algerians. They decided that there would be absolute subjugation to the French. They did this in order to help the needs of the colonization. In 1881, a Code de l'Indigénat was put into effect. It was made official that theses repressive measures would be put into place. Culturally, the way of life of the native Algerians was put on hold.

Economically, things started becoming bad for the Algerians around the 1840s to the 1860s. This occurred because the French started seizing on Algerian farmlands. Their economy was based on farming. This took the ower away from the Algerians, who becam dependant on loanes.

The Invasion of Vietnam

Reasons

In the French's mind, the Vietnamese were inferior people, and they wanted to educate them with the French culture and religion. For example to enhance Vietnamese infrastructure, they built roads, railways, and a bridge across the Red River at Hanoi, and, to better their culture, set up multiple opera houses. In addition, Vietnam's copious natural resources were very appealing to a developing France. Rubber, the second largest export after rice, was produced by plantations across Vietnam. The French were just as interested in coal deposits, and output of the Hongay Coal Mines quadrupled in fourteen years. Another motivation in the eyes of the French was that the commercial success in Vietnam decreased the burden of taxpayers across France.

Method

The French colonized Vietnam in 1858. 2,500 soldiers took the port of Tourane and returned to take the capital, Saigon, in 1861. The French imposed an extremely harsh rule, which caused the Vietnamese people to become second class citizens in their own country. Only a very small percentage of the population were able to retain any amount of social standing while the majority of the Vietnamese were forced to slave away as the lowest working class. 

British East India Company

The East India company began as a privately owned company and became one of the largest colonized areas in Asia. The company didn't take political power immediately, but very gradually. They set up trading posts without taking any power and kept the relationship purely for economic purposes. Eventually the company spread their power by conquering the state of Bengal in 1757. Their puppet ruler went unchallenged for almost a decade while the company demanded more and more taxes. In 1764 the Mughal Empire rebelled against the Brittish because of the outragous expenses they forced them to pay. The brittish armies defeated the Mughals and set more restrictions in place.

- It was the largest colonized area in Asia.
- India company was Privately owned business.
- Established trading posts without becoming in-control
- 1757, conquered Bengal and put in puppet ruler
- 1764, Mughal empire fought against British troops but were defeated and British put puppet rulers everywhere and took control.
- company collected tax from Bengals as a result of uprising of Mughal
- soon after company went onto annex onto other companies
- landowners had to pay tax
- Debts of rural Indians was little concern. Calls for reform focused on Company's monopoly. Criticism of colonial methods mounted as the company's arbitrary rule in India became better known in London.
-Company assembled military and administrative departments becoming imperial power in its own right.

LIfe Under Colonial Rule- Congo

Life in Congo under the rule of King Leopold II was gruesome. The villagers in the Congo were not treated as humans, but rather as property.  Rubber and ivory were in high demand, and Leopold forced the villagers to supply all the rubber and ivory that was needed, or suffer punishment. Punishments included, for men, cutting off their hands, and for women, being sold into prostitution. The soldiers in the Belgian army also forced the villagers to supply all the fish, meat, vegetables and fruits they ate, all year round. Most of these goods are only abundant during certain seasons, and the villagers had to travel far in harsh conditions in order to supply what the soldiers needed. If they couldn't, they were forced to sell a son or daughter into slavery. Local laborers of the Congo were forced to wear European clothing to show Belgium's superiority. Disease from malnutrition and lack of sleep also greatly increased during Belgium rule, and populations decreased more than 60 percent between 1890 and 1990. During the Belgian colonization of the Congo, the local Congolese laborers started a temporary mutiny against the Belgian officers. The Congolese people's goal was to humiliate the officers, not kill them. However, a few dozen Belgian officials were killed over the course of the colonization period. Evidently, both sides (Congolese and Belgian) had something to worry about, making the experience problematic for both the Belgian and Congolese people. Surely overall, the experience devastated the Congolese population far more, leaving permanent effects on this territory and all of Africa.

Vietnam - Life Under Colonial Rule

The French orchestrated the colonization of Indochina (the combination of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) with a firm hand, repressing the Vietnamese beliefs in favor of European values. French officials were given places of power within the newly instated government, and violation of the laws or rebellion of any kind resulted in decrease of Vietnamese representation. Political actions common to repression such as censorship and limitation of education were common. The Vietnamese were encouraged not to participate in politics, for fear that they might be inspired with rebellious notions. Ironically enough, political ideas such as communism and nationalism would eventually defeat the french to bring independence to the people of Indochina. A quick note: it is interesting to note the parallels between the repression and the resulting brand of nationalism in the repressed people. In colonies of fairly liberal governments more moderate nationalist movements appeared, whereas in Vietnam they came up with hardcore communism that has only in the last few decades turn to socialism.  In any case, the condition of the daily life of the Indochinese was unpleasant, to put it lightly. The people were virtually slaves working for a meager bag of rice, only able to keep one bag out of every eleven that were harvested. The corrupt French  government often guillotined, tortured, or burned the whole village of their opposition. 

Methods of and Reasons for Colonization in Algeria

Timeline: 

• France invaded Algeria on May 16, 1830 and gained control by 1847
• Controlled all of what is now Algeria by 1914
• Revolution in 1962 ended French colonization in Algeria

Major players (key terms):

• Napoleon III took power in 1852 
• Frantz Faron was a Frenchie who was a social revolutionist and supporter of the nationalist movement for Algeria
• Abd-al-Kader was a young Algerian military commander that lead a national army of 100,000+ in jihad against the French
• Ahmed Ben Bella used soccer as a platform to become the first president of independent Algeria

How it happened:

• French brought over a huge fleet of ships
• the "dey" surrendered

Why colonize:

• open markets
• more trading outlets
• France was having some domestic problems with people questioning the authority of their government so a military victory abroad would help to establish the monarchy

How colonized/free:

• Depending on who ruled Algeria periods of limited and total occupation 
• Algeria requested independence after helping to fight off Nazis during World War II, but it was denied
• Led to revolution

Comparison between societies:

• Religious differences
• Algeria = Islamic country and France = Christian
• Difficult for Muslim Algerians to become French citizens during colonial rule

Cultural effects:

• Jihad (war justified by Islam)
• Napoleon III supported the Arabs

Political stability:

• Algeria built up its army under Abd-al-Kader in early French colonial rule
• Revolution started in 1954
• Both wars when French initially colonized and when Algeria started revolution in 1954 were very violent

South Africa was colonized by the Dutch East India Company and the British Empire. First it was occupied by Britain in 1795 as a strategic outpost against France so they could have a military advantage through sea and land. The Dutch came to make trading outposts and as a result Dutch settlements appeared. The British and Dutch exported wine and wool which Fueled the economy because of the vast amounts they were able to produce. When gold was discovered, British miners flowed in, angering the Dutch. The Dutch then reduced the status of british miners to secon class citizens, taking away their right to vote and instituting high taxes. The British rebelled, and when the army of the British Empire stepped in to help, the boer wars began.

The Boer wars were very unevenly matched, as it was farmers against the army of the powerful British empire. The native South Africans supported the British, because they believed they would be able to get more equal rights from their rule. In the end, the British put the Boers in concentration camps, and won the war. However, the South Africans did not immediately get their equality. 

South Africa remained under British rule until 1910, when they gained independence.

The Congo Free State: Belgian Colonization

During the Berlin West Africa Conference in 1884, the Congo region of Africa became known as the Congo Free State and was ceded to Belgium, more specifically King Leopold II. Several years beforehand, King Leopold II had established the Association Internationale du Congo (Committee for Studies of the Upper Congo). The formation of this committee and its title provided Leopold with an official reason to utilize Congolese territory. However, this committee was not state-formed; it was Leopold's private investment. Therefore, he must have either used his own money or money from the state, a questionable circumstance itself. 

King Leopold II had several reasons to imperialize the Congo. He wanted to obviously expand Belgium's worldwide influence, but his primary ambition was to take advantage of the Congo's rich natural resources and sources of human labor. Wild rubber, palm oil, and ivory were the three main resources that Leopold targeted for mass production. He also planned to prosper financially and economically from the production of these resources.

Although his economic ambitions were fair during the time, his methods for acquiring labor and resources were atrocious. He hired Congolese workers to harvest all of the three resources he desired, using menace as a motivator for laborers. If workers refused to work or did not work efficiently, Belgian officers would cut off a hand and/or a foot, or simply kill them. To further enforce this policy, the Belgians hired local Congolese men to act as local officers of the Belgian government, creating a divide in the Congolese people. The Belgians also brought European disease with them, killing countless Congolese people and disrupting the natural continental immunity system. 

Two journalists during this time looked into the Belgian imperialism: Edward Morel and Roger Casement. Both wrote journal entries on the horrible treatment of Africans and truth of the matter of what was actually going on in the Belgian Congo. To effectively convince and captivate the public, these journalists took photos of children and other Congolese people without hands and/or feet. These photos were soon published, which led to Leopold's eventual withdrawal from the Congo. Some consider Leopold's use of the Congo as a genocide. Regardless, the Belgian Congo reveals the dark sides of imperialism and its inevitable consequences.

British East India Trading Company

After the 7 years war, the British and French went to India to
colonize. The slow colonization began with the British East India
Company, a trading company that began in the Mughal Empire and traded
between India and the British. It began as just a trading company, but
slowly the Brittish began to take more and more power away from India
and putting it into the hands of Brittish rulers. The trade became
umbalenced when the Brittish began trading cottton for textiles which
was far more beneficial to the Brittish than India. The colonization
was purely economic, based solely on the expansion of Britan's
economy. The Brittish put in a string of puppet rulers into India and
by the 19th century they were in almost complete control of India. By
1857 it became a Brittish territory.

Imperialism as a Nationalistic Phenomenon

Hayes proclaims that colonialism united countries within themselves by giving them a common goal of power. As examples, he references several physically small yet powerful European countries that colonized many regions in order to raise their homeland's power and status in the world. It pressed a reaction that lead to the desire to maintain or recover national prestige. 

Colonialism: The Age of Empire (by Eric J. Hobsbawn)

In "The Age of Empire", Eric J. Hobsbawn comments on colonialism and its relations to economy. He describes that nations colonize other countries as a means to show their power and as a way to expand their own economic success. Colonialism is an indirect way for countries to compete with each other. It's a race to expand more; to have more land to gain wealth. This idea of spreading to gain and show power coincides with the actions of the Islamic nations and Napoleon. 

Technology and Colonialism

According to Headrick, colonialism was a random product of the innovations that came during the Industrial Revolution. These innovations made it easier and economically sounder for nations to conquer. Countries weren't necessarily motivated to expand, but the new technology from the Industrial Revolution caused the nations to expand. 

Innovations like the compound engine popularized steam ships and were used for overseas trade. Before only sailing ships were used. 

The breechloader and machine gun made colonialism easier because it was safer because countries could kill the inhabitants if need be. 

Technology did play a role in colonialism, but it was not the only factor, and probably not the largest factor from country to country. 

Gender and Empire

European women had a complex, varied, and often contradictory relationship to the African and Asian territories controlled by the European powers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Women in colonial societies had slightly elevated positions that allowed them to attack the inequalities of race, politics, and economy. The new social class of a superior race and inferior sex within shows a relation to the rising middle class of the Industrial Revolution. They both had a respectable position in society, but were not superior and could never attain the highest status.

Industrial Revolution

The reading suggested connections between the French and industrial revolutions, but did not really elaborate further. It also connected it to the Enlightenment, which makes a lot of sense. The Enlightenment brought about a new age of scientific thinking, which of course would have spurred the invention of new machinery and new uses for natural resources, such as coal and iron, so that greater production could happen. The French revolution also would have helped show how the old ways of thinking were not as relevant, and support the common business man having power. After the French revolution, the people did not have to pay the government onscene taxes, and so wold have been able to make more money, which would have allowed them to expand their businesses, increasing production.
The Industrial Revolution and slave trade were very strongly connected. It is even possible that the two depended on each other, because increased manufacturing required more workers to pick the cotton, mine the coal and mine the iron, even faster than before. Because of this need, slavery probably looked pretty useful, as slaves could be forced to work very hard, for very long periods of time, and would never be able to quit or leave you, except through death. The Industrial revolution would have created a demand for slaves, and the slave trade would have encouraged people to expand and manufacture more.

Connections with The Industrial Revolution, The Slave Trade, and the French Revolution

The Industrial Revolution had a lot of connections to the French Revolution because it differed so much. The Industrial Revolution aided Britain monumentally it boosted the moral of the country and it provided jobs/opportunities and overall boosted the economy. Where as the French Revolution practically killed the economy, took thousands of lives, and corrupted the French Government. Also the Industrial Revolution created new transportation possibilities, and it made new factories which helped to aid in the creation of new technology.

The Industrial Revolution had to do with the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade because you could say that there was forced labor in both in that you would have needed labor to build those transportation opportunities, and to build and work in the factories. Where as the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade when the slaves were transported to there homes they would be forced to do labor which sometimes had to do with the constructing of buildings or mobiles. Also both were a long grueling process where a lot of pain and suffering was produced, From the Industrial Revolution it took time to build everything and the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade because it took time to come from Africa and then it took time to find their place and job.

The Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, and the African Slave Trade

In both the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, there was a change in meaning of the highest class. Having supreme control, the landowners had the ultimate say in daily life and politics, as did the first and second estates. But as the Industrial Revolution progressed, the wealthy landowners found that they no longer were the most influential, as businessmen grew much more important. In the French Revolution, the change was much more sudden but still similar. The high class was wrenched from power because of growing anger from the lower classes due to inequality. Also, I get the impression that the Industrial Revolution caused a boom in jobs, giving more people opportunities to make their living. Like the French Revolution, this empowers the common man, who in the case of the French Revolution would be the Third Estate. With the new form of society, they were granted an equal chance to make whatever they wanted of themselves.

The African Slave Trade and the Industrial Revolution have less immediately apparent similarities. From my first impression of the Industrial Revolution, it also seems like with a more modernized world, leads to people taking advantage of the labor force. Mahatma Gandhi argued, "Industrialization on a mass scale will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of the villagers." While not many listened, as evidenced by the world's readiness to embrace industrialization, he had a valid point. Industrialization must have caused those in power to abuse the freedoms of a giant potential working force. The African Slave Trade was also very much about taking advantage of other humans and using them as laborers for financial gain. Although the slave trade is a much more serious example of this, both involve some level of exploitation of the potential of other human beings.

Connecting Industrial Revolution

WRITE a blog post in which you discuss possible connections between what you read and, first, the French Revolution and, second, the African slave trade.

The Industrial Revolution is certainly similar to the French Revolution. During both of these revolutions, society began to shift its view on importance of certain citizens. Before these occurred, the nobles and higher class tended to make all the decisions and have the biggest influence on society. The French Revolution led to a great shift of power in favor of the third estate. The lower working class of people began to have a say in government because they proved that they are worthy and that it is their class that is making the biggest influence in society. During the Industrial Revolution, new inventions led to new jobs for thousands of people. Work in large industries and factories created jobs for people who had never previously worked. Because the lower working class began to work in these factories, they greatly influenced the production of goods. People began to recognize their significance in the economy which led to an increase in power.

The Slave Trade related to the Industrial Revolution in a similar way. As new inventions were being made that encouraged efficiency with the production of goods, the demand for these goods rose. This of course led to an increase of slave demand. Without slavery, there was no good in creating the new inventions, as they would not be put to use. In order for the economy to succeed, there needed to be the people who actually produced the goods in the first place. The Industrial Revolution also modified the type of labor slaves did. For example, before the invention of the cotton gin, slaves would always pick cotton by hand. However, after this invention, some slaves used the cotton gin to do their work, which led to the same amount of cotton being picked by less people in shorter time. Overall, the Industrial Revolution led to an appreciation of the lower, working class, as it promoted new jobs for more people.

Connecting the Industrial Revolution to the French Revolution and the Slave trade

Connections to the French Revolution

The French Revolution allowed the poorer people to have some power and have better jobs. The industrial revolution also improved the job status of many poor people, but mostly in Britain, (although France was one of the top countries benefiting from the industrial revolution). Also, the Industrial revolution was a lot more gradual in terms of change. Another difference is that the french revolution was executed by the third estate against the top two estates, almost like a civil war, while the industrial revolution was not a conflict between people within a country. The social order was also changed in both revolutions. Thew poorest people gained more power and jobs opportunities. Also, the industrial revolution was focused more on unity, while the french revolution broke France apart.

Connections to the African Slave Trade

The Industrial revolution had less in common with the african slave trade than it did with the French Revolution. Both greatly improved the economy where they happened. In Africa, the countries got a lot of money by selling slaves, and the industrial revolution brought in more money for european countries. While the end result for the two are the same, the process is much different.

Connecting Industrialization to Slave Trade and French Rev.

Connections to the French Revolution:

The Industrial Revolution in Europe changed peoples’ way of life. More jobs were available, travel became easier with railroads, and machines could produce goods much faster than humans could. However, not only was people’s way of life changed, but the social order also changed. Though the country as whole suddenly became a lot wealthier, not everyone within the country was wealthy. Owners of big factories found themselves with more money than they had ever had in the past, but the people working for them were poor. However, poor peasants could work hard to come close to the wealthy owners of factories. The Industrial Revolution changed the social order, just as the French Revolution did. The French Revolution provided people who came from the Third Estate with a chance to be powerful (take Napoleon for example). The Industrial Revolution also provided this opportunity. It gave poor people the chance to set about promoting and inventing new ideas, which they could use to gain wealth.

Connections to the African Slave Trade:

The African slave trade was a system of transporting laborers. Because the slave trade was trans-Atlantic, it is a good example of a trend being spread world-wide. Almost everywhere in the world used slaves: Europe, America, even Africa itself. This connects to the Industrial Revolution because that is another example of a trend being spread world-wide. Railroad tracks, and just the idea of industrialization in general spread across the world, even to countries whose leaders swore industrialization was bad, such as India.

Industrial Revolution, French Revolution, and Slave Trade

After reading about the Industrial Revolution, I can see that not all revolutions are destructive to society like the French Revolution. The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain boosted the economy, provided more jobs, and could have brought the entire country together, whereas the French Revolution tore everything apart. As opposed to completely turning society on its head in one swift action, the Industrial Revolution allowed for a more gradual introduction of the lower class into society. The lower class could show their importance without all the violence that there was in France. Also, the Industrial Revolution set an example for other questions, not a warning. Other countries saw that what was going on in Great Britain was a good thing and took steps to mimic them. In the time of the French Revolution, everyone saw that it was bad, and took steps to be unlike it. Though both Revolutions achieved the same thing on the grounds of social class, the Industrial Revolution had a longer lasting positive impact.

The Slave Trade was like the Industrial Revolution in that they both boosted the economies of the countries where they took place. However, the Industrial Revolution was something positive, and the slave trade has since been looked at as something awful that should never be repeated. In the Industrial Revolution, the lower class showed their importance by working in the factories, but the slave trade showed that those who are in lower classes were worthless and could work for nothing. Though they both did good things for the economy, the Industrial Revolution and the slave trade stood for two completely different things. One was about work that was good for the entire country, and the other was about work that was good for a single person at a time.

Connections!

The industrial revolution helped lead Europe as a whole on expanding it's economic prosperity, and shaping it's countries ideals and new systems. Not only did it shape it's economic foundation, but it had a huge affect on it's culture aspect and contributed on making the lower class more important in society. This relates to the French revolution because it's goals were to make the lower class more important, important in a sense where the third party was not only pivotal but in a way where it seemed as if they were making decisions with everyone! The industrial revolution and the french revolution both relate to each other because they both had an outcome of having the lower class more important to society! Their efforts also lead to a reshape of systems that impact Europe and its ideals. Like I said their economic value raised due to its efforts of reshaping its systems.

In my view the Industrial revolution didn't relate with the Atlantic Slave trade due to the fact that the industrial revolution supported machine-based manufacturing instead of the brutality of the Atlantic Slave trade.

History Connections With the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was, first and foremost, a movement towards innovation and new ideas. This movement began in the mid to late eighteenth century and continued for almost two hundred years. All across Europe, railroads were built, coal and iron were mined, and production of goods skyrocketed.  This huge change relates directly to the French Revolution because of their similar characteristics. Both revolutions started small, with whispers and rumors of a better way of life. Next, people took action and made an effort to change their lives. While French revolutionaries worked to overthrow the king and take power into their own hands, people of the Industrial Revolution began doing business on a huge scale in an effort to increase income and technology. They both ended with partial success, accomplishing much but encountering many problems during their struggles. 

The slave trade connects to the Industrial Revolution because slaves were directly related to growing businesses.  Many slaves were forced to work on cotton and other types of plantations, giving their masters free labor and a chance to increase profit without increasing expenses. Slaves were also traded as property, speeding along industrial growth.  

Industrial Revolution

My task is to connect the information I learned about the Industrial Revolution to the French Revolution and the African Slave Trade.

Both the Industrial and French Revolutions had enormous impacts on Europe and the entire world. These were some of the most influential time periods in the modern world and shaped people's views civilians' role in government and economies. The Industrial Revolution came at the tail end of the French Revolution and helped to make Europe the most powerful continent in the world.

The Industrial Revolution probably diminished the trans-atlantic slave trade. Because Europe was producing so many goods, there was not as much of a need for manual labor in the fields for agriculture. The IR diminished agriculture's role in society because of the massive increase in money from exported goods. Agriculture had for thousands of years played a vital role in societies' economies and since the Agricultural Revolution some 7,000 years ago it had been the main money maker.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution essentially sprouted from the French Revolution. The French Revolution brought new ways of thinking into the world and before that the Scientific Revolution brought in new ideas about God and the universe. There were always pushes for scientific and technological advancement, but they were always made by the royalty and high classes of society so they were usually superfluous inventions made for hobbies or weaponry for the military. There hadn’t been any huge movements for making life easier for the lower classes. There had been inventions, but no huge, ongoing improvements. And of course, the lower classes had been too busy working to discover and invent much more than what they stumbled upon by accident. However, once the social boundaries and strict classes were brought down (at least, the idea of social boundaries being brought down was put in before being shut down), it was much easier for the poor farmer to become a wealthy middle-class man. All he needed was a way to be more efficient than all the other poor farmers he was competing with. Thus, the Industrial Revolution would have a driving force behind it. The Industrial revolution was also related to the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The Industrial revolution was all about more efficiency and higher profits, as was the Slave Trade. They both created opportunities to make more money for less work/money, the Slave Trade was just a lot less ethical. Slaves were a huge asset to America’s economy at the time, they held up the plantations for much less money than what paid laborers would have.

Connecting the Industrial Revolution to the French Revolution and the African Slave Trade

The Industrial Revolution can be connected to the French Revolution and the African Slave Trade. The Industrial Revolution connects with the French Revolution because both concerned the social aspects of society as well as expanded their ideas and innovations to other countries. Socially, The Industrial and French Revolutions both gave the lower and middle class ample opportunities to move up in society. Both also spread their ideas and innovations across Europe and the rest of the world. The map on page 531 as well as the table on page 535 illustrate the spread of new technology from the Industrial revolution very clearly. The industrial Revolution and the African Slave Trade can also be connected because both led to booming economy's and a massive gain in wealth. The Industrial Revolution's new innovations spawned more successful markets for coal, and iron which helped the economy prosper; the African American Slave Trade created a large market for slaves which also helped several African Kingdoms become very wealthy.

Industrial Rev: French Rev and Slave Trade

The Industrial Rev (IR) ties to the French Rev (FR) as an social and economic aftershock. From the FR, the world became exposed to a total reversal in social class and new way for people to rise/lower on the social ladder. Like the FR, the IR introduced new ways to climb and rest on the social ladder. to Social status based on profession was a principle that became exaggerated during the IR, where one's workplace totally determined his/her wealth, social status, and domicile. During the FR, there existed the high and low ends of society: aristocracy and peasantry. However, in the IR, the high and low end of society relied on work ethic and profession. Therefore, the idea of meritocracy tossed itself around during the IR; the harder one works and the better job one has, the wealthier and more socially equipped he/she becomes. All of these ideas and principles were introduced by the IR through economics, yet strongly provoked by the FR in the first place.

The Slave trade and the IR share many effects and circumstances with one another. Both economic outbreaks, each one changed major aspects of certain societies for the sake of economics and money. Obviously, the IR introduced new means of machinery and economic methods to increase revenue for a vast amount of industry. However, it also created specific divisions within the social classes and made life very difficult for the lower classes. Likewise occurred in the Slave Trade; for money-making purposes, whites (and even blacks) sold African people as slaves. Although a new and very prosperous industry was cerated through this slave trade, the social effects were most certainly devastating for large numbers of African slaves. It presents a universal question: when is it worth jeopardizing social harmony for money-making purposes? The IR and Slave trade both dealt with this issue, as economics were the primary objective with social considerations as a side effect.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was most similar to the French Revolution in its social ramifications. Both revolutions connected the people of their respective countries and changed the structuring of the social order. The Revolution in France connected people throughout the country by polarizing their ideals, forcing them to be either revolutionary or conservative. Dividing the people like this increased connectivity amongst the supporters of each side. The Industrial revolution changed this more peacefully, connecting towns or major industrial hubs by way of train. As the map on page 531 showed, railways became a much more prominent feature in Europe. Likely they were most often used for trade and transporting goods, but before long, people would be allowed on too. Increased infrastructure always brings people from far places together allowing for cultural exchange. Also, in the French Revolution, the lower and middle classes were raised above the nobility and clergy. Similarly, in the Industrial Revolution, the wealth and state of living of the lower classes were increased because there was a novel way to make a living that was available for almost anyone. Another possible connection between the two is the increased consumption of natural resources. The French Revolution was, in large part, a war with countries and insurgent groups that opposed the new ideas. Wars always exhaust myriad materials such as metal for weapons, food for troops, and even cloth for uniforms. The Industrial Revolution did something similar except, instead of wasting the raw material without any real product, they manufactured something that could be sold to consumers. The Industrial Revolution was the more fruitful of the two.

The Industrial Revolution and the Slave trade can be related most easily through the economic changes that occurred. As is true with industry, all economies that came in contact with the slave trade came to rely upon it heavily. As opposed to hiring and paying workers indefinitely it was economically more sensible to buy slaves who would work for all their lives and produce children to continue to do the same. For industry, though we would now like to cut back some on it to allay our problem with pollution, it is almost impossible to do so completely. Without manufacturing, many more people would be jobless and all economies would suffer horribly. All the little things that are necessary to our lives were not hand made, but produced through the combined efforts of many production line workers or even just machines that were thought up in the industrial revolution. Arguably, the Industrial Revolution continues today, even if slave trade does not.

Industrial Revolution

The industrial revolution holds many connections to the French Revolution. First of all, both the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution united the people. During the French Revolution, the people came together, and changed up the strict social hierarchy that was established at the time. After the French Rev, it was possible to change social ranks, and they were not as set in stone as before. Similar social changes occurred in the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Rev, there were three main classes in Great Brittain: the British Aristocracy, the Middle Classes, and the Laboring Classes. Similar to the situation in France before the French Rev, it was very difficult to move up a social rank. Also, the large majority was a part of the Laboring Classes, just like the majority of people in France was part of the Third Estate. After the Industrial Revolution, people of the Laboring Classes could get better jobs working in factories, and improve their way of life. Another similarity between the two is how quickly their ideas spread. During the French Revolution, it was mainly ideas that were spread around the population. During the Industrial Revolution, not only were ideas spread, but things were actually built. For example, the amount of trains increased dramatically all over Europe, allowing easier transportation for the people. Both the Industrial Rev and the French Rev's main ideas were spread around different countries. One difference between the two is that the Industrial Revolution had longer positive effects. During the French Revolution, the Terror was instituted - killing 10 000s of people, and France later returned to an absolute monarchy. The Industrial Revolution appears to be permanent. Once people had jobs in factories, the improved their way of life for the rest of their working life in most cases.

The Industrial Revolution also resemble the African Slave Trade. In both cases, the economies grew. Jobs were being created, and the workers were being payed. In the Industrial Rev, many factories were established, creating jobs for many people. These factories manufactured goods, and sold them to make a profit. The creation of the African Slave Trade is similar to creating a  factory. People took other people, and sold them to make money. It created jobs, and opportunities for profit for leaders of African people and slave traders. However, there is one major difference between the Industrial Rev and the African Slave Trade: the things being sold from the factories were objects; the things being sold for the slave trade were people.

The Industrial Revolution

READ Strayer p. 534, then the table on 535, map on 531, and last p. 527-528. Then WRITE a blog post in which you discuss possible connections between what you read and, first, the French Revolution and, second, the African slave trade.

The Industrial Revolution relates to the French Revolution in various ways. First, both transformed European society and Europe advanced farther than many other countries with these two revolutions. The Industrial Revolution helped the economic, scientific, and social change in Europe. For example, agriculture shrank in importance while the social and scientific aspect of Europe grew tremendously. Technology grew of course in the Industrial Revolution because people invented new machines and explored the various ways to complete daily chores. Socially, men and women did not have to work as hard and it socially changed Europe's people and amount of labor. But everybody were not affected positively from the Revolution because it was a tough process and there were a lot of social conflicts. During the French Revolution, everybody was affected socially and economically too. For example, all the peasants and people from the third estate gained social and economic power instead of a few nobles making all the decisions. From this revolution, everybody was not positively affected because there were hundreds of people killed from the new changes socially in France. Overall, these two revolutions had positive and negative impacts on Europe in many different aspects.


The Industrial Revolution and the slave trade can be related with the economic and social changes that happened in Europe. Many people in Europe have used slaves and children for labor in mines, mills, and factories. They needed small children who were young and had a lot of strength to work in the small places that would be difficult labor for adults. Economically, everybody was able to complete tasks and chores quicker with slaves. With slave trade, the wealthy people became non-reliable to work for themselves. They relied extremely on slaves and increased the need for more slaves and increased the slave trade in Europe. The more people used slaves, the more they depended on them to do their work and the people of Europe became more and more non-active.

Saudi's Oil production a weapon against Iran?

This initial focus of this article describes the enhancing oil production Saudi Arabis is undergoing. In a mere two years their oil production has gone from a low $35 a barrel but to an astonishing $80 a barrel just last week. The focus of this article is not only to focus on the increased production of oil but how it affects Iran. The Saudi's have proclaimed that their efforts is simply to help out the global economy and it's deficit. But when you look at their neighboring country you notice that their efforts are not only helping them but it's hurting Iran. The Saudi's only need an amount of $51 dollars a barrel to cover its budget but Iran on the other hand needs an average of $90 a barrel. If the Saudi's were able to produce in the range of about $70-$80 for the rest of the year it would help their surplus, but for Iran it would force them to phase out food and energy subsidies in an attempt to help their economy. Not only would this affect their food and energy but this would force them to rethink their efforts on nuclear weapons. This would not only help the Saudi's but help worldwide.

Foreign Policy

The Article I read was Think Again: Green China which talked about how China is the biggest greenhouse emitter and polluter on one side and on the other side they said that China is was more green advanced then the US. It went on to talk about how China is either the green model of the future or a reminder of the Industrial Revolution. The larger significance is that the harm that China is doing could affect other neighboring countries and it could even be spread to the entire world if not contained. You could argue that with China's advanced Green technology they could remedy the pollution in the entire world and reduce the amount of green house gases that we produce which would help. We have been discusing the Industrial Revolution and this is like a reminder of that in that China has been building many Factories over the years and from those Factories gases and pollution are formed which in turn harm the environment and make it seem like China is not green at all because it does little about this polution which has been affecting the citizens and deforming some because of the chemicals and forced labor kind of like the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade after they brought to their owners wand were forced to work.

Foreign Policy

The article that I read was about how the internet helps potential terrorists across the globe. It tells us that extremists can easily gain access to videos with “hardcore propaganda” and instructions for making explosives. The article brings up these dangers, but it also mentions the rights of free speech. Restricting the internet for these kinds of networks, despite their obvious threat, could be against their rights of free speech. If we take away their right of speech then we begin to fall down a slippery slope of government control. However, the ability to access terrorism is significantly increased by the internet. The article goes on to tell us about the frustrations of the internet and give a few examples of would-be terrorists using the internet. It tells us that propaganda videos are easily spread throughout the internet and start to infest the minds of people who would otherwise not have had such hardcore beliefs. The article is named “A Web of Lone Wolves,” referring to the fact that isolated extremists are much less dangerous than they can connect with others who think like themselves. This is an important thing to note because it shows us that modern technology both helps and hinders the general good. Technology itself is not something inherently good or bad, it really depends on who uses it in the best, most efficient way. In this case, extremists have found a smart way connect and convert people to their cause. I think one of the most significant points of this article was when it touched on freedom of speech. It didn’t say very much, but I think it was important. It tells us that “it will be a continuing challenge for Western governments and societies to draw the fine line between what is protected under the freedom of speech and what is criminalized as direct incitement to murder.” Governments should keep their people safe and protect their rights at the same time. In situations like this, it is hard to keep a balance between them.

A Web Of Lone Wolves

This article talks about the cultural influence of internet, and relates it to the recent killings at Fort Hood. The killer, who was supposedly an Islamic Extremist, would not have had a lot of access to other extremists, which may make ot surprising that he acted so violently and passionately. However, as the article says, the expansion of the internet has not only created more access to useful information, but also more to potentially harmful things. Though the internet, Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan would have been able to converse with other followers, spread his ideas and be influenced by others opinions. The article discussed an Islamic leader who spreads his influence over the internet, making Islamic extremism equally accessible to all.
This is rather disturbing, the way this article so fully exposes the harm the internet can do. I personally use it for basic communication, and also for research and relaxation. However, any tool can be manipulated in some way to fit its users needs, and this has certainly been done. As the article says, the common access to internet allows even the pizza delivery man to plan a violent uprising.

End of the World

The article I read was about the most likely causes to bring the end of humanity in the world. While fortunately, none of these are likely to happen in any of our lifetimes, they could very well happen in the next million years or so. This was probably written as a response to the new movie 2012. which is about the "end of the world." The Mayan calendar suddenly stops on December 21, 2012, (12/21/12) and many (crazy) people believe that the world will end on this day.

Joshua Keating gave five possibilities for the end of the world: an asteroid, climate disaster, nuclear war, a plague, and unknown causes. His thesis is that any of these events could happen , but they are highly unlikely during our lifetime.

An asteroid probably will not happen while we are alive because they only come once or twice every million years. Also, to create any substantial worldwide damage, it would have to be 15 km.

Climate Disaster is the most likely out of all of these to happen because it is already a problem in the world. However, people probably will have found alternative energy sources by the time it gets to be a problem.

Nuclear War: This could happen in our lifetime because if countries with nuclear weapons like Iran or North Korea got into a serious conflict, the effects could be grave.

Plague: There have been many plagues during the course of humanity, most notably the black plague and the current swine flu outbreak. Unfortunately, the diseases harm people faster than a cure can be made.

Unknown
There can be unknown natural or man made causes that could destroy the world like a supervolcano or a gamma ray burst from a star.

The End of the World

This is a response to the article on the Foreign Policy website that I read here.

This weekend I made sure to see the new apocalyptical movie 2012. I waited in line for a 9:40 showing for the 2 hour 38 minute long film in order to get entertained with overly dramatic and highly implausible scenes of the world self-destroying. I was let down, but who doesn't love big budget movies where destruction occurs for the entire movie?

In the Foreign Policy article Joshua Keating talked about five possible scenarios for the end of humanity.

1. Asteroid

Large population threatening asteroids hit about once every two million years, so the chances of this happening are extremely unlikely. But, if an asteroid were to hit Earth, there would be little we could do to stop it.

2. Global Warming

This is the most likely scenario in our lifetime. By the end of the century if carbon emissions are substantially decreased civilization could see the flooding of coastal regions, 1/3 of the Earth being covered in desert and the death of 40-70% of species of animals.

3. Nuclear War

With countries like North Korea and Iran trying to build nuclear weapons, the chances of nuclear war are relatively high. A war between two nuclear superpowers like the U.S. and Russia would leave a lot of dust and smoke behind, which would raise global temperatures, cause a change in precipitation patterns and lead to a huge drought.

4. Plague

Plagues like the Bubonic Plague, the flu pandemic of 1918 and the recent swine flu outbreak are all examples of past and current diseases that have and could wreak havoc on society. Despite big leaps in medicine, the diseases develop just as fast.

5. The Unknown Unknown

There are a huge range of events that could lead to the apocalypse. Natural (giant volcanoes, deadly emissions from stars) and manmade (famine, deadly new technology). The sun is expected to destroy the Earth in 5-8 billion years, but it is unlikely that mankind would survive to see that day.

Exploring man's destructive tendencies without the imminent weight of the apocalypse pressing down on us is an easy way to think about how we might all die. But, depending on your view of the effects of global warming, the apocalypse may be imminent. Also, the fact that a blockbuster movie just came out about the end of the civilization makes this discussion more relevant.

In a way more massive scale, the drastically changing world during the apocalypse is similar to the way France underwent an upheaval and change of society during the French Revolution. I would also argue that the Haitian Revolution saw more of a change than the French Revolution because it was the first completely successful slave revolution, and slaves were much lower on the societal ladder than the Third Estate.

Think Again: Green China

"Is China the green model of the future - or an industrial polluter on a massive scale?" So begins this intriguing article on relative pollution and "greeness," for lack of a better word. Think Again: Green China addresses the rumor that China's enviromental-friendliness and alternate sources of energy surpass the rest of the world. This is partly true, and partly not. On one hand, China is truly advanced in its technology. They have spent much time and money developing more efficient ways of harvesting wind and solar power, and are currently pursuing alternate forms of energy as if it were a top priority of their country. On the other hand, China is already terribly polluted and could hardly be considered "green." Beijing's air is so polluted it can be hard to see the sky, and hundreds of thousands of people die prematurely because of impure air and water. So although China may be ahead of us in its search for Earth-friendly energy, it is already way behind when it comes to keeping our world clean and happy.

This article focuses on China, but it really relates to how other countries view each other. Instead of the USA hoping that any advances or breakthroughs China makes could be great news for our dying planet, we immediately resort to competition and wonder where they are in comparison to us. All of the articles about China focused on whether or not they were a threat to us - if they created more pollution, if they would take our citizens' jobs, if they would make more money than us. The instinctual competition between countries couldn't be more obvious if it was openly spoken about.

Competition and rivalry between countries is not a new theory. During the French Revolution, all the countries surrounding France immediately became suspicious and nervous of France's power and tried to stop them from gaining any more. All countries want to be the undisputed power force in their regions, and this often causes unncessary tensions between countries that could otherwise help each other achieve a common goal.

He's Got the Law (Literally) in His Hands

Being a U.S. citizen, it is hard to imagine not being familiar with the constitution. Even if you don't have the amendments memorized you know, you've heard the phrases "the right to freedom of speech and expression" and "all men created equal" and you know what they mean.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in Liberia. Even the most educated lawyers and government officials don't know the laws. I read the article "He's Got the Law (Literally) in His Hands". It was about a situation in Liberia that most in America would find shocking: only a few copies of the law exist, and all of them are in the hands of one person, Philip Banks. Banks took the copies and placed copyright on them under his name, saying he would improve the justice system in Liberia. However, now the people who need the law the most, lawyers, police, and other law enforcers, can't obtain a copy of the law without paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the copyright. The justice system, judges, lawyers and juries, don't have a copy of the law in print that is necessary for them to make fair decisions. It also makes it easy for a government to become corrupt, and blame it on the fact that they don't have access to the countries most basic laws. Anthony Valcke, a British lawyer working in Liberia who was interviewed for the article, states the main idea of the article: "[the written law] is so fundamental to a democracy that it's unbelievable that this situation has been allowed to exist for so long."

When I read this article, I realized the idea of a written law being so important related exactly to the French Revolution. In order for the National Assembly to be successful, they had to write their laws. This situation in Liberia has become a big problem, and this shows how important is is to have a copy of a law. As we have seen in every example of a successful nation, a country cannot be successful with a fair, non-corrupt justice system, and this system cannot be fair without the law in their hands.

Foreign Policy: Liberian Law...Or Lack Thereof

When you go into a court room, it is customary to assume that the lawyers and the judges inside will know what they are doing. There would be no doubt in any one's mind that they are thoroughly learned in all the laws of the United States. This holds true in a lot of places, but not in Liberia.

In Liberia, a man by the name of Philip Banks holds the copyright for the only full volume of the country's laws and legal codes. Banks, along with a small team of lawyers, compiled all of the country's newest laws into one volume. This volume has been copied only a few times, and given out in only rural areas. Aside from the volume that Banks has, the laws have essentially been lost. Due to the lack of law knowledge around the rest of the country, judges have been making decisions off of 2o year old laws that are owned by the government and hardly make sense anymore. Banks knows this is a problem, but he sees his volume full of laws as his original property. He says that without his works, the laws would be gone forever. Banks contends that the only reason why he has the copyright in the first place is because the government refused to give him enough money to fuel his project. Now he refuses to give the copyright to the Liberian government because he believes he should be compensated.

This article now begs the question of whether or not it is more important to donate the results of your hard work to where they are needed, or to be fairly compensated. Apparently, Banks thinks that its more important to be compensated for his work. However, I believe that in keeping the volume and copyright to himself, he is keeping the laws from the country where they are needed. All Banks wanted to do in the first place was make sure that the laws were safe from being lost, but in hoarding the copyright to himself, he is causing the same affect. Laws are made for the people so that there is justice found in every situation. Justice does no good when it is kept to a single person, and that is just what Banks is doing. This article teaches a lesson to all and that lesson is that sometimes it is more important to donate your work so that it makes a difference, even if it means that you wont be payed.

War zone or post-national paradise?

In this blog article, Jordana Timerman explains her views on the border between Mexico and the United States. She explains that the images of people shot to death, gunmen wearing bullet-proof vests make up evidence that the border is an all out war zone. Apparently, officials from both the United States and Mexico have been thinking about rethinking the border between these two countries. Many illegal drugs pass from Mexico to the United States, and certain groups wish to target the passage of these illegal drugs on both sides of the border. They propose to ban assault weapons, and focus more on finding and preventing the smuggling of arms and illicit drugs. These groups also propose to reform the immigration laws in the United States, and that Mexico start taking illegal immigration as a serious issue. Timerman also informs us that, since there's been talk about electric fences and vigilantes, these ideas sound pretty good.

This article suggests that the problems on the border go both ways. The United States should re-think it's border plan, but Mexico should take illegal immigration seriously. However, illegal immigration doesn't only affect population growth. Illegal drugs can be passed over the border, affecting the health and safety of millions of people, if the drugs get around. The fact that people are shot to death at the border signifies that there needs to be significantly more communication between the Unites States and Mexico. Zooming out, this shows that lives can be saved with just better communication.

If Louis XVI communicated more with his people, many lives would have been saved. If he listened to them, he would not have died at the guillotine. The tons of people who died during the reign of Terror would have been able to live full lives until their natural deaths. Also, the people's living conditions would have improved immensely, making people lives longer and happier. All this could have happened with a little communication...

Kiva

Many people are familiar with Kiva. It's a microfinancing website that hosts profiles for people in third world countries who need help to raise a certain amount of funds. You can lend them money to assist their efforts, and after they make enough to offset the loan, the money will be returned to you. Kiva prides itself on its ability to offer an opportunity for you to directly help an individual and watch their progress as their business continues. Well, Kiva may not be as transparent as it seems. What if you found out that the person you were lending money to had been given their requested loan in its entirety one week ago? The truth is, another organization approves and distributes the loans even before each person's profile is publicly set up on the website. The money you are lending is pooled by this middle-man agency and then doled out as seen fit. Kiva is not as direct as many still believe it to be.

This information does not affect the integrity of Kiva because it still stands as an organization that allows for a better standard of life, however the money is distributed. As long as the people who need money are getting their money, and people who lend money have that money returned to them eventually, what does it matter how the money got there? That said, the strength of Kiva really isn't as a microfinance organization alone. People are attracted to it because they are under the impression that they, as an individual, are directly influencing the life of another person. If Kiva advertised the truth, the number of donors would drop severely because it would no longer appeal to the basic human instinct to help out other human beings. Again, I think that this is a very smart decision on Kiva's part. The core problem that it seeks to correct is poverty, poverty that could be surpassed if people were just given a chance. Yes, it could be said that Kiva takes advantage of people through a couple of carefully concealed details, but the fact is that Kiva still presents opportunities for those who would have had none. And isn't that what really matters?

Although this article does not tackle the problem of poverty directly, Kiva's goal is to share opportunities with people from third world countries, and by creating a website that persuades people to allow these opportunities, Kiva slowly increases the quality of life elsewhere in the world. As the article asserts, it does not matter whether Kiva is being directly truthful. The problem it tackles is that we are naturally caught up in the world around us. Although it is debatable if it is our responsibility to share our personal wealth with that of another country, Kiva does a great job of assisting these individuals by drawing an emotional response out of us. Either way, the fact of the matter is, their quality of life is so much worse, in general, making it that much harder for hard-working people to get by.

Comparing the French Revolution to the Situation in Afghanistan

I recently read an article concerning the elections in Afghanistan. The article (found here)insists that the victor of the elections is and will be the highest ranked military official in Afghanistan, a warlord/marshall named Mohammad Qasim Fahim. The article insists that by Fahim coming to power, the Afghan people and the American presence in Afghanistan will suffer immensely. Fahim is described as human rights abusing, and drug trafficking; not exactly the type a citizen would want running there country. Overall, the Afghan people are to accept there new leader, despite fighting alongside United States Forces for a leader that fits their needs.
When I read this article, I couldn't help but draw connections from the situation in Afghanistan to the French Revolution. My main connection was that both had failed to implant the type of ruler or government that they had wanted despite fighting hard for political change. France fought for a democratic government that gave more representation in government and were left with Napoleon the despot. Similar to France, Afghani's and United States forces continue to fight for political change yet end up with another military officer in charge. In both cases, once the fighters were given the opportunity to change their government they failed to change anything at all and let a military leader take charge. The situation in Afghanistan and the French Revolution are identical in the way that when the people controlled their own political future, they failed to implant a new government, and the military took over. Overall, the similarity between the two events concludes that in the event of a revolution, 9 times out of 10 the most powerful military leader will seize control.

Think Again: Green China

WRITE a blog post in which you first introduce and summarize the article and then explain the larger significance of the information the article covers. Try to relate what the article discusses to the history we've learned – essentially try to create a thesis about why the article matters.

The article "Think Again: Green China" discussed how China is doing with environmental problems. There has been disagreement over this over the last few years. Because China is very advanced technologically, China has been fairly successful with the green aspect, such as using renewable energy. Regardless of China's impressive technology, it is still "a pure environmental villain," as China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country. The article is somewhat inconclusive in that it does not say whether China is a good model for other countries. Although China works hard to advance environmental technology, it still is the most damaging country in the world. This article is significant because it talks about what countries are doing to better the world. The article discusses issues and attempts to solutions of these issues. The article talks about the United States and China, and how they are both doing in relationship to each other.

The most prominent issue in this article should be China and what they could do better to improve the environment situation in the world. However, the article instead discusses how China compares to the United States. The whole article was about the competition between the two countries. It says that America should work to keep their "competitive edge in the global marketplace," and even talks about onside being "ahead" of the other. This is similar to any point in time. Competing with other countries is necessary because having advancements in ideas, goods, and money give a basis of trade with other countries. In order to get what you do not have, countries must give what they have that others lack. During the French Revolution, France was a step ahead of the rest of the world with its political ideas. Because of its competition with other countries, when France shared their ideas with other countries they received new advancements for themselves.

Foreign Policy: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Oil

Saudi Arabia serves as an essential worldwide oil producer, especially to Iran. Recently, the Saudi Arabian government has considered constraining oil prices that will perhaps weaken Iran's budget, especially for nuclear power. While Iran depends on oil prices around $90, the price of oil is now fumbling around $70-80. Since Saudi Arabia is affiliated with many other countries on the oil front, international affairs could change between certain connected nations.

The U.S. also depends greatly on Saudi Arabia as an oil supplier. This recent idea to attempt to damage Iran's budget could be an indirect request of the United States. Through Saudi Arabia's oil trade with Iran, the U.S. could second-handedly decrease Iran's budget to help prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. This circumstance is a display of the complications of trade and how the motivations of one country can be executed through another. It shows each nations' incentives, biases, and alliances with one another. In this case, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. could share a common opinion towards Iran. On the other hand, Iran could identify the threat imposed on itself by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

From Red to Green: China and Pollution

Driving home on the highway after a rain, the sun sets in the rearview mirror casting orange light across the afternoon sky. In the distance you can see the stark outline of the mountains through the window. On the hillsides you imagine a short dusting scrub that makes their flanks look soft. You want to stroke your fingers across the mountian, as you would pet a cat, but of course you cannot. This is how it should be, you think. Most of the time, though, that is not how it is. On summer and fall days expecially it is not the mountains that welcome you home, but an overlying crest of smog, choking your vision until you cannot even see a blur of an outline of the range through the smear. This is the issue that confronts us in the day and age of industry. The steady decline of the state of the environment.

For a long time now, the United States has a had a strange sort of sinking feeling - that it has been losing ground politically, economically, and now environmentally. We are no longer the same world power that we once were. Our economic decline has pulled us down to the normal level of influence, dragging everyone else as well. All, that is, but China. China has grown in all realms of power, becoming the world's manufacturer, and developing itself in terms of preventing pollution. Our fear that China will take over the world with its leaps and bounds in saving the environment, however, are unfounded.

I read an article called "Think Again: Green China" which discussed both China's failures and successes in terms of the environment. Written in response to rumors that China has outdone the U.S. in this field, the story makes the point that although China does have more ambitions and is working harder currently to work against pollution, it has many more problems to fix than we do. If seen in terms of a race track, we are starting many steps ahead of them. China is one of the most polluted countries in the world, the Chinese cities of Linfen and Tianying placing the top two most polluted in the world. Data cited in the article shows that 750,000 chinese people die early due to the poor condition of air, water, and earth. Despite statements that China is surging forward with manufacturing alternative energy sources, such as solar panels or wind turbines, it is also true that 90 percent of those created are traded off. So even if China is creating these sources, it certainly does not benefit from any of them in a big way.

On the other hand, though, is the fact that China's legislation on the subject is much better than ours and most others'. They have the single child law which restricts the population and through it consumption of the country's resources, as well as a law banning plastic bags and resources. The article uses these points to argue that their government system is not conducive to actual change in society. I agree and disagree; although it may take a while for changes to take hold, the fact that these changes are spreading at all is hugely important. Even if not everyone follows these laws, the fact is that most will, and this is enough to make a significant difference. As polluted as they are, this legislation adds greatly to any case that someone might make for China and environmentalism. In any case, it is much more than the United States has done, even with the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen looming. This brings us to the culminating statement of the article; even if China is gaining ground in this "race," we cannot blame them for our own indolence. Power has lulled us into a state of undeserved complacency. Even if it is arrogance and pride, the need to always come out on top, that spurrs us into motion in this situation, it is better than watching in horror as we are bested again. We must do something, if we are to be mollified.

Though this issue is obviously important to the modern world, as an issue of both world power and protecting the earth from the danger that is global warming and pollution, it is more difficult to apply it to what we have learned of European history. In this, I will have to look to the more general political side of the problem. As we have seen in all facets of the French Revolution, it is when a leader stops striving to improve the condition of the state that he or she is overthrown. The people simply become dissatisfied with settling for what has never worked or could be done better. Perhaps, there is something similar to be seen in the power of the United States. If it does not stop speaking and start acting on the issue of the environment, it will lose even more of the power that has long slipped from its grip. Making a difference is not easy, but it is for the best of all. Change is beneficial to a people, as stagnation is not.

WRITE a blog post in which you first introduce and summarize the article and then explain the larger significance of the information the article covers. Try to relate what the article discusses to the history we've learned – essentially try to create a thesis about why the article matters. For models of blog posts – to find proper tone, organization, and length – feel free to check out the blog from my senior English class. It's on a very different set of topics, but the structure of blog posts remains the same.

Many of you know of the new movie coming out, 2012. It features regular people who encounter the end of the world during the year 2012. There are many theories of how and when the Earth will come to an end, and some are more farfetched than others.

One theory of how this could happen is from objects impacting the earth's atmosphere and an asteriod occasionally makes it through the atmosphere. Eventually, a large enough asteriod will cause enough damage worldwide when it impacts the earth, such as how the dinasours were killed. If another one of those objects impacts the earth, we will most likely be wiped out too. The only thing about this theory is that an object large enough to do that comes about only once or twice every million years. So this theory is not very likely to occur in 2012.

A second theory is climate disaster or global warming. By the end of this century, it is predicted that the Earth will increase 4-5 degrees and will affect sea levels in a negative way. It would rise the sea levels and floods would occur more often. More the Earth's temperature increases, the water supply would decrease and many countries would experience drought.

A third theory is a nuclear war. With thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, there is some fear of a nuclear winter. It is predicted that lgobal agriculture would be wiped out that would lead ot famine and kill most humans. Also, with so many nuclear warheads in the world, people are afraid of wars reducing the Earth and its environmental needs. But the nuclear winter theory is controversial and an all-out nuclear war between two powers is far less likely now than it was before.

These articles relate to the propoganda that people tried to put in certain works such as the famous painting from David. He put in false information to fool the audience and public to thinking certain ideas that were obvioulsy false. Apparrently, there are a lot of different theories of how the world will end, and those different ideas are propoganda that scares and worries the public. It is similar to the propoganda that we were just studying about and how anyone can influence the public with works of art and articles such as these. Also, we were studying SPECS and scientific research is one of them. Scientists have been studying and analyzing the history of the earth and that is how they have come up with their conclusions. Scientific research has come a far way since the 1700's when there were many scientific revolutions. During that time is when people started to believe more in science and not rely on religion. These examples show that people in the 1700's and now still act the same way and how these articles relate to the topics we have been studying recently.