La même histoire

Things I learned this year:

• Happy people don't start revolutions. (Credits to Taylor)
  
• Most alliances are not lasting, and in some cases, not really trustworthy.
• There is usually a reason for something happening; societies don't stage upheavels because they are bored, fellow countries do not offer assistance because it is morally correct to do so. More often than not there is an ulterior motive.
• History is what we make of it, and the winner writes the story. Moral: be the winner.

While individual facts of history are surely important, the greatest purpose of school is to give us the tools necessary to learning and comprehending independently. This year in modern world history, I relearned the importance of the thesis and how it can make or break your argument. A thesis is like a boat; if it is supported by evidence and takes a firm stance, then it will float, but if it is faulty from the beginning, then it will sink your entire argument. The thesis must guide an essay, not the other way around, so that supporting ideas are organized around it.
My system for taking notes has also changed; what good does it really do to write down every single thing that a presenter or film tells you? Will you truly use your notes? No, it is better to note the concepts or events that, given research and time, will get you further. Leads. Connections. Emotions. These are both ephemeral and necessary - they will not come back, and they can be the beginnings of new arguments.
So though we learned so much, it is unlikely that I will remember most of it in two years. I will remember, however, how to write a good argumentative essay in history, how to take notes, how to "gut" a paper, what to look for in primary documents, how to look at a situation in the larger scope of things. All in all, it has been a successful year.

Hungary vs. Algeria

Both of these revolutions saw massive protests and other forms of uprisings against the government, who were both from another country. In Algeria, there were many boycotts against the French government, and in Hungary, there were huge protests against the Soviet puppet government. Also, the revolutions could both be considered failures. Though the Hungarian revolution worked for a few days, in the long run, Soviet troops did not leave Hungary until more than 30 years later. The Algerians were obliterated by the French and never really experienced much success in their respective revolutions. Clearly, both the Hungarian and Algerian revolutions have obvious connections.

UN Paragraph revision

Despite the disorganized website, it is clear that the UN is a very good organization, and will not do any harm. One could argue that they are inactive, and cannot exert any justice on the world, but it urns out they are just what we needed. The UN has made may decisions for a long time, consistently, and employs their own peace corps, made up of soldiers from many of the different countries who hold seats at the UN. It is these many countries that give the UN its strength: strength not only in numbers, but also in the wide varieties of perspectives and cultures offered. This large array of countries will help the UN be successful, as if one countries breaks the peace, like Germany did, there are many, many other countries to help stop them. The League of Nations did not work because it had so few countries, so that when Germany decided to take over Europe, it was difficult to do anything. The humanitarian missions of the UN are perhaps even better than their declarations. Before the UN, it was up to small, private organizations to deliver assistance to those in need, and floundering countries were virtually left on their own. Gaining help from a large, unified organization can only improve impoverished or war-torn areas.

Algeria and Iran

The Algerian Revolution and the Islamic Revolution in Iran were both ultimately unsuccessful because the governments that they created gave rise to political instability in a situation much like the one that the revolutions sought to free themselves from. After the Algerian Revolution, there was a constant struggle for power between political parties, and there still exists a huge divide between the French and the Algerians and Western culture and Islam. Similarly, Iran's Islamic Revolution produced a theocratic state and dictatorship, and people still live in constant fear of the government. In both revolutions, the idea of religion plays a huge role in determining the state of the new nation. In Algeria, the divide between religions makes it difficult to find unifying principles, and in Iran, the hopeful theocratic government slowly crumbled as the religion become intertwined with the declining political state. Although the Algerian revolution produced divisions within society that led to unrest, the Iranian Revolution seems to have created a tension between the government and its own people through ignorance of civil rights.

Questions and Answers

What exactly is a theocracy?

A theocracy is when a government is mainly based off of the nation's religion. Basically it is the opposite of what we have in the U.S., which is the separation of church and state. In some cases their ruler or leader is believed to have divine power, or a connection to the gods. In Iran's case, the government strictly follows the laws of the Koran.

What rights are Iranian citizens supposed to have?

It became clear to me through my research that there really isn't any regard to human rights in Iran, especially on the subject of protesting, and overall opposition to the government. One article states that "Privacy rights as well as the freedoms of press, speech, religion, assembly, and association are also limited by the government." Therefore, when looking at this question from a political standpoint, really the Iranian citizens do not have any real rights regarding protesting or freedom.

However, from a moral standpoint, we can answer this question differently. In my opinion, all humans should be guaranteed the right to freedom. This is not the case in Iran, but hopefully the UN or other groups will work to make it so.

THAILAND AND HUNGARY

Thesis Thailand: This is not an example of a successful revolution because it will probably not have long term effects.
Thesis Hungary: The Hungarian revolution was only successful depending on what time zone you look at. The success of the revolution fluctuates depending on the political, social, and economic states of the country.

The states of these two countries, as well as the basises for their respective revolutions are very similar. Both countries are unhappy with their governments, leading them to revolt. In Thailand, the monarchy is being questioned which led the country to political instability. Similarly in Hungary, the right wing nationalism has started to grow even though it is not represented in their government. Since the people of the Hungary are supporting something different than their government, they too have political instability. These shared political instabilities have caused economic failure in both countries. In Hungary, lies about the economy made by political leaders have led to major inflation and the general failure of the system. Economic growth in Thailand have also been halted because of protests in the center of the city. Finally, both theses have the commonality of neither of their revolutions sticking. In both countries, the revolutions seem to have immediate effects. but neither of them will stay long term.

Thailand and Algeria? intertwined

The connections between Thailand and Algeria are pretty great because both have the fact that their governments are in in political instability, and when the two sides argue one side massacres the other. Thailand has political instability because ever since it was changed to a democracy in 1973 there have been battling sides to decide what style of government they want. Thailand has massacres such as in the case of the failed government crackdown that killed 25 people and also recently on May 13 a protester that was a general he was shot in the head during an interview, so that massacres seem to be going on without stop because they cannot decide on what they want their government to be like. Algeria is in political instability because it has been fighting against France for independence back in the 50's and in the 90's they had the FIS and the GIA trying to seize control of Algeria, and recently in2005 the president of the GIA was arrested, and the GIA was declared unstable. Algeria had massacres such as when they had to fight against France for their independence and also when they had the GIA in 1998 massacred 50 innocent civilians.

Algeria vs. Iran

The revolutions in Algeria and Iran are very similar. Both revolutions have resulted in a government strongly influenced by religion. Religious extremist groups seized power in both cases. Both have suffered economically since their respective revolutions and are still struggling with poverty. Both have been unhappy with the elections of past leaders, and feel that their was fraud involved in the process. Both post revolution governments have attacked their citizens resulting in large death tolls; they show brutal retaliation. Overall, both revolutions were unsuccessful and worsened the state of their countries.

Similar Outcomes Through Specs

Although the revolutions in Iran and Thailand occurred in different eras, they are similar in many ways. Thailand and Iran both had unsuccessful revolutions. Although I know little of the revolution in Thailand, the group's thesis stated that it would be unlikely if it had long term effects. Similar in Iran, the government that was established by the revolutionaries is no longer in place today. There are similarities and differences throughout the SPECS categories of each country. In the scientific category, both countries involve weapons. Although in Iran, the focus of our ideas was that Iran is building nuclear weapons for the future. In Thailand, guns were used to take over the government, and they are not planning on creating new weapons. Both countries economies went down the drain. The U.S. instituted economic sanctions in an already poor country, making the economy plummet. In Thailand, the poor economy was caused by protests. The revolutions in Iran and Thailand are more similar than they are different with likely similar outcomes.

Hungary vs. Algeria

The Hungarian and Algerian revolutions were very similar in that they were both revolting against something foriegn. They were both backlash towards a foreign country taking them over and neither seem to have ended in greater stability for the country. Although they both now have their countries in their own hands, their economies have drooped and there is still a lot of political instability. They have major inflation as a result of their political unrest. They faught for their countries to be released from foriegn powers, but when they finally got their power it dissolved into economic and political instability. Algeria is ripped apart by religion and racial differences, while Hungary uses the Roma as scapegoats and fights against far right extremist nationalism.

One major difference between them is the religious aspect of the revolutions. In Algeria there is a large emphasis on Islam whereas in Hungary the revolution was purely political. Islam is based in a theocracy, so when the country revolts the religion gets involved, whereas in Hungary religion stays tucked away to make room for purely politial instability.

Rebelutions

The Iranian and Algerian revolutions have many political and social similarities. Both revolutions include Islamic influences that caused tension and provoked internal violence.

In the Islamic Revolution, a revolution occurred to create a theocracy, or a religious based government. After gaining independence from France, Algeria went through several Islamist regimes, such as the FIS and the GIA (as mentioned in the timelines). Citizens were divided due t these regimes in both revolutions, which makes religious politics the root of both of these conflicts.

The circumstances in both revolutions show the strong correlation between the social, economic, and political aspects of a nation. When there are rapid political changes, the economy tends to plummet. When the economy plummets, citizens are unhappy and more likely to be driven to extremist groups and violence.

Iran vs. Algeria

SKIM the thesis, timeline, and SPECS table of the three other revolutionary groups. CHOOSE one of the revolutions and WRITE a comparison between it and the revolution you researched in class.

Thesis Iran: Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979 was unsuccessful because its theocratic state was not maintained over time and its people live in fear of the now dictator-led government.

Thesis Algeria: The Algerian Revolution was not a success. Prior to the revolution, there were social problems involving race between the colonists and the native Algerians. The revolution failed to solve this problem and resulted in another. Now, there was a religious divide among Algerians as well as a racial one, due to the political instability and the growth of the Islamic Salvation Front.

There were many differences and similarities between both of these "Revolutions". First, the Algerian riots began around 1988, when twenty years earlier during 1963, the Secret Police in Iran were already trying to control the riots. Also, the Algerian Revolution lasted for a shorter time period, 20 years, (1980's - early 2000's) and the Islamic Revolution lasted for about 30 years (1960's - late 1990's). The dates of the Revolutions were different, but both of the Revolutions were looked as a failure. The Islamic Revolution could not maintain a theocratic state and the Algerian Revolution could not solve the social problems. The SPECS for both Revolutions are very different in both areas. The SPECS for Algeria were mainly about economic problems and inflation. The SPECS for Iran were mainly about the government and how the common people disagree with the way the government is ran. The problems Algeria had to deal with are more social and economic, while Iran had to deal with their government and fighting against political "corruption". Overall, the Algerian and Islamic Revolution mainly had differences in the causes, but had the same outcome: failure.

Iranian and Thai Revolution Comparison

Protests rage in Bangkok, Thailand. 

Thailand and Iran, two countries that had revolutions in the 1970s, are back in the news again regarding political protests. Thailand is the big story nowadays because there are violent protests in the streets led by a group called the Red Shirts that represent the urban and rural poor. There are less stories about Iran but there are still protests about the disputed elections that occurred last summer. Both Iran and Thailand's original revolutions must have failed because 30 years later they're still in turmoil. 


So why exactly are these two countries still struggling for stability 3 decades after they revolted?


In Iran the economy was the root of their instability. Rasfanjani strengthened the theocratic republic but the country's economy faltered. With an economy so heavily centered around oil and a less than perfect government there was a lot of corruption and the wealth was not spread around. Nowadays the United States is also imposing economic sanctions on Iran which further deepens their economic problems. 


In Thailand I don't understand the underlying problem with their government but it seems like the couldn't figure out what type of government worked best for them. After a coup in 1932 the government became a constitutional monarchy then it became a democracy briefly before quickly becoming ruled by the military. In 1992 Thailand held democratic elections once again and now the government has violent protesters attacking them. All the political flip-flopping makes the people anxious and revolution much more tangible because protests are in their blood. 

Comparisons!!!!!!

Comparing the Iran Revolution to the Thailand Revolution

Thesis of Iran: Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979 was unsuccessful because its theocratic state was not maintained over time and its people live in fear of the now dictator-led government.

Thesis of Thailand: This is not an example of a successful revolution because it will probably not have long term effects.

These revolutions are very similar for one main reason: they did not have lasting effects. The Islamic revolution led to a dictatorship in Iran, where citizens have little or no rights. In Thailand, there is still protesting, government crackdowns and political instability. Also, during and after both revolutions, the countries experienced a change in their forms of government. In Iran, the country went to theocracy, then to dictatorship. In Thailand, the country went from absolutism, to monarchy, then to democracy. Both governments are still unstable, and violence and protests are everyday occurrences.

Connections, Connections

Like the revolutions in Thailand, The Iranian revolution was unsuccessful because it was merely a demonstration that didn't make any long-term changes. Iran is led by a dictator, and while Thailand is technically a monarchy, its leadership has also become incredibly controlling and corrupt lately. Thailand's richest citizens are suddenly appearing influential in the political scene, pointing to a potentially rising anarchy. Both country's citizens now live in fear of the omnipotent power of the government, and have made very little leeway towards changing it.

One similarity between the revolts in these countries is the strategic way they are being advertised. The Thai protest that took place through April and May was located in the commercial center of the city, affecting Thailand's economy and industrial progress. This made the protest completely visible to all of Thaiwan and the surrounding countries that are engaged economically with Thaiwan. Similarly, Iranians are taking their revolution online with web comics and youtube videos advertising Iran's revolutions. Although they both took different approaches, the revolutionaries of both countries have the same goal: get the word out to as many people as possible by using a medium that might not typically be associated with revolution.

Both revolutions have also come into some form of contact with other countries. The U.S. is heavily involved in Iran, placing economic and military sanctions on the country. The protesters in Thaiwan have been contacted by many outside bodies, including the US, Britain, and France, who all begged them to stop protesting. Both revolutions are facing opposition not only from within their own country, but from other countries who are affected by Thai and Iranian economies.

From Thailand to Iran

The revolutions in Iran and Thailand have many similarities, perhaps because they are occurring in the same time period. First off, both are less made up of clandestine organized groups protesting against the standing government, but rather of normal civilians who take issue with corrupt rule. It might be because of this lack of organization that both revolutions have been unsuccessful - neither can make an actual stand against the government. In spite of this, Thailand has made it farther than Iran. In Iran people protested and were injured or incarcerated as a result. In Thailand, rallies and protests were held to the point that the government conceded to the demands of the people allowing for public election. Three days after this concession, however, a general who was allied with the protesters was shot in the head. So the Thai group might have made less progress than they would have previously thought. The two also have a similarity in the purpose of their protests; they rally for democracy and the removal of corruption from their system. Again, in this case, on group has a lead over the other in that the Iranians theoretically have democracy, but they don't believe that the results of their vote was carried out properly. The Thai on the other hand have several times won and lost democracy and cry for it still today.

Supreme Leaders and Such

The questions I answer are from Robby. 


What about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made so many people protest about unfairness? 


The Middle East and South Asia doesn't have much of a history of successful democratic elections. Or democratic elections for that matter. I try to follow the news and the pattern with all elections in this region of the world is one of accused cheating and delays. The elections in Iran, Afghanistan and most recently, Iraq have all included political candidates accusing one another of various things like ballot stuffing or throwing away votes. 


The mostly student protesters called the president Ahmadinejad "a liar." Protesters see the elections as being unfair because of fraud, because they think that Ahmadinejad threatened Mir Hussein Moussavi and because it is unjust and suspicious that they jailed and beat hundreds of protesters. 


How does the government operate?


The government is a theocratic republic which means it is a country ruled by Islamic societal rules. It's kind of confusing because the head of state, or president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but the "Supreme Leader" is Ali Hoseini-Khamenei. Whereas most Middle Eastern countries are moving away from Islam in their governments Iran still is a theocratic republic. 

Iranian Issues

Question Numero Uno: What evidence is there for a nuclear program in Iran? (Clarification: nuclear *weapons* program)

Iran already has a nuclear program, which the government claims they are using solely for energy purposes. Many major western powers are trying to prevent Iran from gaining the power that comes with going nuclear.
A popular cleric in Iran claimed that Iran already had nuclear weapons, but I do not think that one man who speaks contrarily to everything his government says is likely to be entirely right. However, I do not think he is entirely wrong, either. If Iran already has nuclear power, there is very little doubt in my mind that they soon will or already to have nuclear weapons. This is mainly based on the nature of nuclear explosions: they are very powerful, and therefore can be tricky to contain and harvest usable energy from. It is much easier to make a big explosion than to contain one: the atomic bomb was created before nuclear energy was used as power.

Question Two:
How much of Iran actually gets internet and cellphone coverage? (I was interested because the article mentioned these two resources as methods of spreading the truth)

Iran has far less internet coverage than the US, with 10.8% of their population online as opposed to 68.6% in the United States. It is very interesting how even though the internet is not yet a part of every day life in Iran like it is in America, it still holds enough power to alter the course an entire country takes by making the suffering of a people known to the rest of the world.
According to this map (which does say it may not be correct, so don;t read too much into it), Iran has somewhere between 100,001 and 1,000,000 mobile cellphones in use. America is in the 'over 1,000,000' category, which is unsurprising. Iran, which has around 72 million people, therefore has at most 1.4% of its population using cell phones. AS with the internet, this is a relatively small number, yet it was still able to make a significant difference.

Is This Iran?

a.) Questions:

- Why did the Iranian government wish to put down the protesters?
- What did they hope to gain from violence? Did they think it would help them gain popularity?
- Why would the "crackdown" "heighten nuclear concerns?" Does the fact that they are dangerous one way make it more likely they are dangerous in another?
- What evidence is there for a nuclear program in Iran?
- Why is it usually the youth that protests against injustices, even when the older generation experiences a dramatic change as well?
- The government attempted to restrict information getting out- is this relatively easy to do in foreign countries compared with the US?
- How much of Iran actually gets internet and cellphone coverage?
- What actually happens when you get arrested in Iran?
- How does the Iranian justice system work?
- Was the vote actually rigged?
- Were the protests actually as peaceful as they are said to be?

b.) Connections:

- Restriction of information: we haven't studied it, but this is very similar to what is currently going on in China, and what has traditionally gone on in isolationist countries for centuries.
- Fast, brutal suppression very similar to that of the Hungarian revolution.
- Also, protesters were peaceful, young students.
- People protesting about lack of control over their own government

c.) Gut Reaction

The comics strip was pretty shocking. Over here in my isolated little world, I had no idea how intense an unprovoked attack like this could be. The strip was almost graphic, but left just enough to the imagination for the result to be rather horrifying. I know that people everywhere are fighting for freedom to choose their won government, but I did not realize how violently these governments are willing to respond to peaceful protests.

Answered Questions

How is this related to the Islamic Revolution from 1979? (Rina)

The Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979 in Iran when the theocracy took over the government. This movement was led by mostly college students in their 20's. Iran's Shah abandoned Iran to seek medical treatment in the US. Young Iranians, furious with the US, took all 66 hostages of the US embassy in Iran hostage. This situation parallels with the Iranian elections of 2009: the young generation was most of the havoc.

How did the government try to restrict the use of electronics?

The Iranian Government attempted to monitor internet communications by prosecuting, even executing, citizens who spread news about the potentially flawed Iranian 2009 elections. The government also tried to track "cyber gossip" by doing keyword searches for terms such as "iran elections" and "ahmadinejad."

Answering Questions About Zahra's Paradise

I chose to answer two of my classmates questions concerning Zahra's Paradise.

Is the publisher of this article anonymous? How does she maintain her safety?

The creators of Zahra's Paradise remain semi-anonymous. They reveal their first names only for safety reasons. They remain safe by only revealing their first names as well as living in the United States where they are far out of the reach of revolutionary guards. Their names are Amir and Khalil. Amir is an Iranian-American activist and Khalil is an artist hailing from northern Africa.

If the violence was so bad, why didn't outside nations intervene?

Outside nations did intervene, the European Union sent aid to wounded protesters in Iran. Also, many foreign countries opened their embassies to wounded protesters. The embassies served as havens for the wounded because they were places were safety was assured.

Reaction to Zahra's Paradise

For homework we read a comic strip named Zahra's Paradise. The strip was a political cartoon drawn by a two semi anonymous authors named Amir who is an Iranian-American activist and Khalil who is an Arab artist from northern Africa. The cartoon is mostly about the harsh reaction of the Iranian government towards Iranian citizens who protested the results of the last election (it is widely believed that the election was rigged and that the election was a fraud). My first reaction to the cartoon was that it was very dark. The thought of injured citizens being dragged out of hospitals to be beaten by government paid guards is very scary. Also, I sympathized with the protesters being dragged out of the hospital more than with the mother looking for her lost son. Overall, the cartoon was very telling about the Iranian government and has given me a bias against Amadinejad despite not knowing much about him. I was also able to make several connections to other history after reading the cartoon. I connected Freedom square and Tienanmen Square because they both were (coincidentally?) squares, as well as spots for political protest that resulted in bloodshed and government backlash. I connected the retaliation of the revolutionary guards to the retaliation of the Soviets against the Hungarians in the Hungarian revolution because both were swift and excessive.

After reading the cartoon I wondered:

.What was so bad about the policies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

.Was there a retaliation by the protesters against the revolutionary guards?How Long did the violence last?

.Where did they take the injured protesters?

So, about those questions..

Human rights in Iran are a bit vague and sketchy. The right to assemble is "restricted by the government," and I'm not sure what this means but it can't be too good. The Iranian government is incredibly controlling, and the basic rights of Iranian citizens are not its top priority. The students and people who protested and are featured in this comic may have been breaking a law, but they were probably just pushing some boundaries.


The government justifies itself through these same ideals. They value strength and complete authority more than the rights of individual people. The Iranian government doesn't need to give reasons for why it killed dozens of peaceful protestors - no one will openly question them. Justifying their actions is unneccesary and pointless in this situation.

They've got Questions, I've got Answers

Nick: Is Iran's condition really as bad is it seems?

Yes, Iran is really in a bad state right now. As it said in the article in Up Front, the election results were rigged by the government, and Ahmedinejad won, when most people wanted Mousavi to win. As we have learned this year, anytime the government and the people are on completely different pages as they are in Iran, it can never result in anything good. There are numerous protests, like this one, and the government has been trying to censor the truth from the people for a while now.

Robby: What about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made so many people protest about unfairness?

Ahmedinejad had made some bad decisions during his time as president. Many people accused him of fraud, and called him names, like "a liar" and "a cheat." Many people believe that the crisis in Iran is all his fault because of his work with Nuclear Weapons. He has often been criticized because of his judgement.

Iran

What exactly is a theocracy?
A theocracy is a form of government based mainly by religion. This government follows some sort of divine leader who has a special connection with a greater power/powers. It is exactly what we here in the USA try (and in many ways fail) to create, a government without any influence from religion. We've seen it in many different places, particularly from earlier time periods, including the Mughal Empire, Shah Abbas from the Safavid Empire, and King Louis XIV from France.

What happened in the Iranian revolution of 1979?
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the period when the monarchy led by the Shah in Iran brought down and replaced with the Islamic Republic. Many Iranians were disappointed by the lack of change that came with the revolution. The leader of the revolution brought even more oppression than before and the country was sent into political turmoil without any change.

Nucs and Pics

how gov't's crackdown could relate to its nuclear program

The government might be trying to conceal new nuclear programs. By cracking down, they would be hiding this new information from the rest of the world. They could be censoring media information all or a sudden not only because of the protests, but also because they have had a breakthrough in the nuclear field. This article from 2006 explains that "Iran is believed to still be several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons." 2010-2006= 4. That's about a few years. Maybe they have discovered nuclear weapons and are using the protests as a cover up to crack down now.

Since it's a comic, are there any real pictures to prove this is all actually happening? Yes.

Iran's Reality

a) How many people died when the police attacked the students? 

How many people died in the Islamic Revolution in 1979?

Where do the arrested people who disappear end up?

How did the government try to restrict the use of electronics? 

Did they really think they could stop the spread of the horrors they were committing?

b) Censorship

-> book banning in India

-> before French Rev - Louis XVI - press censored

Peaceful demonstration attacked 

-> Hungary- students

-> Taliban - girls school video

Arrested people dissappearing

-> gulag in Russia

c) It's horrible! The protesters weren't hurting anybody, yet they were attacked simply because the government didn't agree with them. They should have a re-election, to appease everybody, since there was speculation about a bogus election. Zahra's paradise is so depressing, but it's reality. We, all the way across the globe, appear to live in a different world. I don't know anybody personally who has disappeared. In the comic, so many people have disappeared or are lost, that it would be difficult to find somebody who hasn't lost anybody. Why is there such an insane contrast between these two countries?

A Demanding People vs. The People's Demands

What do the Iranian people want?

The Iranians who protest are mostly focused on the outcome of the election, namely, how it is that Ahmadinejad is in power when Moussavi clearly had the people's vote. While this may be a single incident, this response indicates to Iranians that their system is corrupt and that their voice is something superficial but not felt prfoundly in decisions concerning their country. As evidence the have the fact that the results were announced only four hours after all the ballots came in, Moussavi had the upper hand in the running, and Ahmadinejad has powerful allies (such as the Ayatollah Ali Khameini) who could easily have changed things to his advantage. That the people's effort to retaliate has been met with violent suppression in the Revolutionary Guard, a group that constitutes 23.9% of the 523,000 troops, is further proof of Ahmadinejad's influential support within the government. He likely has a network of friends throughout leadership who can sway things in his direction during his reign. The people's protest is against all of this, and the idea of a government that is not working for the people to meet their demands, but rather for themselves.

Since it's a comic, are there any real pictures to prove this is all actually happening?

The answer is yes, there are numerous sources of documentation of the reaction to election, rallies, and reports on the crackdown from the government. In searching for this, I found several videos that show rallies at universities or acts of violence against protestors. Another video also recorded an Iranian man describing how the protests would be spread. A superb source for just this thing is at the Washington Post or the AP images website.

Iran

What rights are Iranian citizens supposed to have?

Although many sources present the situation as, "the police opened fire on innocent, peaceful protestors," public protests are banned, and according to the law, the protest was illegal. Of course, that isn't to say that any of this is necessarily fair. Many believe that Iran limits on human rights are completely unreasonable. In addition to the ban on public protests, it is criticized for it's excessive and undeserved political executions, restrictions on the press, and discrimination against women that is explicitly in written law.

Where's the UN?

As we've seen, the United Nations seems to talk about lofty ideal but never follows through with them. A general statement from an Iranian representative to the UN suggests that, more than an inert force, nations simply gather under the pretense that they are all working towards the same goal. A portion reads, "All of them [menaces to the international community], ranging from drugs, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to injustice, poverty and environmental degradation have one common ingredient... They affect us all." Even Iran seems to acknowledge the problems in the world, many of which the country possesses, but it continues without change in policy. Still, the UN doesn't seem to take any action, and fronting a goal of peace works as well internationally as hopeful nations trying to change the world.

Questions:
-How reliable was this story?
-How is this related to the Islamic Revolution from 1979?
-Why did the publisher use this medium? How did it affect the telling of the story?

Connections:
-The Gulag/Stalin
-the Hungarian Revolution
-Propaganda by the Nazi's or just Propaganda in general

Gut reaction:
-The power of backlash to suppression is huge and is seen again and again in all the things we've studied.
-Change targets the younger generations
-revolutionaries are supposedly peaceful but how much of that is relative? Relatively peaceful does not equal truely peaceful.

Are My Questions as UpFront as you would like them to be?

Questions

-In Iran is the country really in that bad of a chaotic state?
-Should we really be using Nuclear power for power?
-Who is Obama going to pick?

Connections
-The North Korea story related to my first semester project
-Disaster to the ancient times

Gut reaction

I really do not think Iran is in this bad of a situation
I also think that North Korea needs to be watched more closely

To say the least, Iran is having trouble

What exactly is the state of Iran? I think it will be hard to find an unbiased source to this question, but we can't base everything off the news and this comic.

I'd like to know more about the Islamic Revolution of 1979

During the Hungarian Revolution, it was also the young people that wanted change and started the protests.

Censorship in general can be connected to a lot of countries, like China nowadays, or communist Russia. Also the book-banning in India.

Not knowing where people are being sent when they are arrested: like the Gulag. Also this could relate to the Holocaust and the concentration camps because I think the rest of Germany was in the dark a little bit about where the Jews were actually being sent (Since a lot of the camps were far away or in Poland)

I was kind of shocked to see this comic. I think it's a very shocking topic in general, and I have a lot of sympathy for the people living in Iran (especially in the hospitals! How awful!) However I think it was mainly very shocking to me seeing the information presented this way. I don't read political comics or things like this, so this was the first time I'd seen something like this. It makes me wonder why the artists didn't just present it like a normal article, but this was certainly very powerful and shocking, and if this is what they were going for, then it worked.

Zahra's Paradise

a.) questions/leads

• Is this publisher of this article anonymous? How does she maintain her safety?
• Islamic Revolution of 1979
• how gov't's crackdown could relate to its nuclear program

b.) connections

• The little boy was obviously affected by propaganda, this is similar to the youth in Germany being indoctrinated into the Nazi party. The youth are more easily swayed than older generations.
• ''being arrested can mean disappearing altogether" - like Stalin's Gulag

c.) gut reactions

• scared
• the comic makes the Iranian protest more personal, I feel her desperation, easier to empathize

Questions/Leads
1. How much of this is actually propaganda?
2. What did Ahmedinajad do that was so bad, and how do they know Mousavi will be better?
3. Islamic Revolution of 1979

Connections
Extremist groups going after youth population because they are easily swayed


Gut Reaction
Iran is in too deep trouble. I don't think the United States should go worrying about Iran because there are enough problems here already.

Is this actually happening to Iran?

READ the cover story ("Is This Iran?") from the most recent Upfront. Make a list of a.) questions/leads the article raises for you, b.) connections you can make to other areas of history, and c.) your gut reactions. POST this list to the blog.

Questions:

- Is this what is actually happening in Iran right now, or is it a form of propaganda?
- How reliable are this person's sources?
- Since it's a comic, are there any real pictures to prove this is all actually happening?

Connections:

Violence is like the Taliban fighting the government.
The Nazi's fighting the people who want their rights of freedom.
Hungarian Revolution: The protests defeated by violence from the government.

"Gut Reactions":

The comic and article might be exaggerated or understated because this person's resources may not be completely accurate. If it was all true, then I believe that the people of Iran need some type of liberation. A type of revolution would be ideal, but the "rebels" hardly have the resources and numbers to defeat the government itself. They all want peace and freedom, but they don't have the solution to achieve it yet. Hopefully, they will find some solution soon without too many young teenagers having to perish.

What's up with Iran?

Questions:

-What do the Iranian people want?

-If the violence was so bad, why didn't outside nations intervene?

-Where's the UN?

Connections:

-Russian Revolution

-Stalin's Gulag/secret police

-Night of the Broken Glass

-political/social motif: secular versus religious

-Great Terror (random deaths and arrests)

Gut:

-this scene shows the flaws that fascism and communism both had

-terror and secret arrests are from the government, which is frightening to the public

-radical change in younger Iranian population's political mindset: too much radical change?

-the election was the start of a potential revolution, but it was smashed by terror and secret police forces - this is strikingly similar to Soviet communism (trying to prevent the domino effect)

Personally I prefer Spiderman as far as comics are concerned...

1. If these men live in America, how do they have so much insight into the revolutions in Iran? Assuming that their knowledge goes beyond what they hear on the news. Especially if Internet access is being limited. What is the controversy surrounding last summer's election? What happened in the Islamic Revolution? What exactly is a theocracy? Why is internet access being restricted and what are people doing to get around it (if anything)? is the Iranian government doing anything about the comic?

2. Hungarian Revolution- protests slammed by the government. China earlier this year- limitation on the Internet. Animal Farm- similar to the comic by using writing and art to express opinions on what's going on in the world without saying it out right. Hungarian reporters telling outsiders their stories- the comic comes from America, not Iran so that the whole world can know whats going on.

3. I feel like a revolution so harsh should have been given more space on the page. The article provides little background information on what's going on and only a small paragraph on the actual protests. If the world is really to be told about what's going on, then there should be more information. Now I feel confused as to why the government is cracking down so hard on the student protesters and why they would cut down Internet use. Without help from the article, I am left to assume that it is just because the government is scared of losing control, which would actually make a lot of sense...

Finding Zahra

Questions/Leads:

• What was the controversy over the presidential elections? Who was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before he became president? What are his policies?
  
• Is there something unique about the cemetery "Zahra's Paradise" and why is this well suited to the story? Are many revolutionaries buried here?
• What happened in the Islamic Revolution and how does it tie in with the Iran of today?
  
• What is the Freedom Square? Is the implied governmental promise more than tacit?
• What is the Revolutionary Guard, a guard made up of revolutionaries or guards against revolutionaries?
  

Connections:

• Disappearing when arrested - similar to Nazis with concentration camps, the Stasi with political prisoners, or USSR with the gulag.
  
• Restrictions on the Internet - censorship/propaganda, similar to China hiding searches about Tibet, and book burnings conducted by the Nazis
  
• Hospital scene - like during a war, but this is supposedly a country at peace
  

Gut Reactions: I feel for the revolutionaries that were suppressed, while I my feelings for the government are not so kindly. Why?

• The first sentence that a child (too young to respond intelligently to a question) will regurgitate is "The nation would rather perish than accept ignominy." From the way the comic went following that caption, it seems that it will both perish AND accept ignominy.
  
• The government seems to be ignoring the human side of their people - they will remove injured revolutionaries to be incarcerated while other citizens look on in shock and families still search for lost loved ones. If they are not considering that their actions will bring grief and desire to rise up, then they intend to suppress the people by means of fear and force.
• In the article, the protests by the revolutionaries are described as peaceful, while the government responds with violence. It is as if they were trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. This defensiveness says to me that the government is suspect and feels that it has something to hide or protect.
  

Iranian Comic

A) What rights are Iranian citizen supposed to have? (Is freedom to peacefully assemble one of them?) What happens to the people that get arrested? What other events have the government successfully covered up? How does the government justify reacting so violently to a protest? Isn't the freedom square a bit ironic?

B) The obvious connection here is with the Hungarian Revolution. Although in this case another country is not openly controlling Iran, the country is facing bitterly harsh punishment for protesting for their rights. There is the same sense of the stronger power reacting with much more force than necessary, and crushing any opposition to avoid larger revolutions in the future.

C) My gut reaction is that something must be done to free Iran from this kind of dictatorship. But the question is, what? The US is already way too involved in other countries, but the people of Iran definitely cannot do this themselves. Their government is way too controlling and veiled for them to find a way to peacefully create a happy society. They aren't strong enough as an unorganized mob to fight the government, and that would probably only end in chaos anyway. I feel like this situation is becoming hopeless, but I keep wanting to find an answer.

Is This Iran?

What about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made so many people protest about unfairness?

How does the government operate? To what extent does it suppress its people?

How do Iranians generally feel about the government?

Stalin's NKVD and the Gulag

Robespierre and the Reign of Terror

German fascism and the concentration camps

Bengali nationalists during the Bangladesh Liberation War

From all that I understand, it seems like the police shooting of protestors was not completely unnecessary and unjust but a vicious act against human rights in general. First, in a society that agrees to operate under a democracy, at the very least, people deserve the right to have a say in their leaders, free of the blatant fraud committed during last June's election. In addition, people were protesting, but the police immediately killed many in order to break up the protests. It seems like they are controlling people with nothing more than brute force and scaring the Iranian people into submission. As illustrated (no pun intended) by the cartoon, there are people who still fight for their rights but do so in secret. It seems like something has to change; people realizing that they are being cheated by their own government, peace can never be achieved.

Quick to Judge

I think the success of a culture based primarily on how well each individual manages. Key word: individual. In addition, it could be measured based on how many individuals aren't managing. If a culture or government has a lot of money but is not spreading it out around their people, then the culture as a whole is not successful. This also relates to what someone mentioned in class, about success being measured by the happiness of the culture. I completely agree with this, and I think it can be pushed even further by saying success can be measured by the happiness of each individual.

I agree with the first part of this statement, but disagree with the second. If a culture was judging the other based on how successful they were, by my definition of success they were wrong to judge. How could you possibly know for sure if the people of the culture are happy or not? Especially if you are an outsider, this would be impossible. However, I disagree that the only sound judgment comes from these specific facts. Like I said before, if a country is very successful economically, they might not be successful on the individual level, and vice versa.

All that being said, we are all biased people, and we all judge. Seriously, we all do it without thinking. So I'm not by any means saying I don't judge communist countries, I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't be so quick to.

Culture=Success?

What makes a culture successful in my eyes is if the civilization does things independently and that they are able to manufactures it themselves. When the Europeans came to Africa their technology was far superior then that of the African people so they were seen culturally superior. Also something that plays in is the fact that the European people because of there placement in the world naturally had more resources so there industry was much more than that of the Africans who had minimal resources and did not have the supplies to produce their own things. "The (capitalist/communist) countries of the world were wrong to judge the (communist/capitalist) countries of the world based on outsider cultural knowledge. The only sound judgment comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts." I do not agree with what it says at the end "The only sound judgment comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts" that I do no think is true I believe that is an opinion and judgment can come from other things as well as those other things such as how wise someone is and their experience.

Measures of Success

Like I was saying in class, the longevity of a culture is the main indicator of success. For the last 60 or so years the United States of America has been arguably the world's most successful country but when compared with the Ancient Romans or the Mayans, America's cultural success has lasted only a short while. Even if a culture is incredibly prosperous or the people are happy it can't be considered successful if it last for only 100 hundred years. But if an empire or country can sustain themselves for centuries then they can be a successful society. In a couple hundred years we will only remember the societies that lasted for a long time and made an impact on the world, there won't be time for remembering countries that burn out and fade away. 

This is off topic, but dinosaurs are a perfect example of a successful society based on their longevity. If you consider the race of dinosaurs with the human race, the dinosaurs were way more successful. Dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of years, and would have kept going if not for a freak meteor. Humans on the other hand have only been around for a few million years. We may be more intelligent and live more comfortably, but our societal tendencies are destructive. A nuclear war is a possibility that could wipe out everyone and our need for innovation has lead to irreversible effects on the environment. Global warming is an immediate danger to mankind in the next century. 

I disagree with the second sentence of the statement "The (capitalist/communist) countries of the world..." because there are so many other ways to measure a society's success besides the "P," "E," and the last "S" in SPECS. In my essay about how we remember Genghis Khan I talk about how in today's world, 1 in 200 people are direct descendants of Genghis Khan. One could argue that another measure of cultural success is literally the legacy of that society. Khan's empire could be seen as the most successful empire in the history of the world purely because his presence is still around 800 years later. 

Incorrectly Comparing Culture

Longevity is the only trait for measuring the success of a culture. Strong culture will be passed down from generation in traditions and other forms, while weak cultures will disappear over time. A strong culture will persevere through rough periods of time and continue to live on, while others may fall to influence from other cultures. It is wrong for anyone to judge culture that is not their own. A foreigner cannot possibly have the same appreciation for culture native to a group or place that they are not familiar with. Some aspects of culture may seem ludicrous to foreigners but are sensible to indigenous peoples. It is fairer to judge other people on their political, economic and scientific facts because those are not up to interpretation. There is no bias in facing facts but there is opinion in judging culture.

It all depends on your... WORLD VIEW!!!

What makes a culture successful? That's a very tricky question. I believe cultural success should be measured by the people for a certain culture, not outsiders. For instance, in capitalist, democratic America, we would consider our culture a success if our country has money, and everyone gets a vote and relatively equal rights.I am sure the ancient Mayans and Aztecs thought their culture was a brilliant success, even though from our standpoint ritually murdering others is not a good thing. So really, it depends on point of view. "Success" means the culture portrays its ideals, which is different not only between nations and cultures, but even form person to person. Although I could definitively answer this question, I can't.

"The (capitalist/communist) countries of the world were wrong to judge the (communist/capitalist) countries of the world based on outsider cultural knowledge. The only sound judgment comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts."

This statement is not entirely valid, although it has truth. I think most of the first sentence is valid, in that you cannot judge another culture based on your own bias. However, a few things generally translate between cultures, and in this case (ideal) communism and capitalism both value human rights, and some degree of equality, so I think both cultures were perfectly justified in judging each other on the ideals they have in common. I disagree with the second sentence entirely, because I believe that there is no such thing as a hard fact. Excuse me while I go on a philosophical tangent, but your own existence isn't even a hard fact. For all you know, you entire world could simply be a dream. But anyways, back to the world where most people believe in their own existence. The use of "hard facts" as evidence against another culture is something done only in certain cultures. It seems a little funny to worry about how countries judge each other now, especially when a long time ago the way battles were fought was: "who has what I want? Can I kill them? Let's go!" So while maybe the "judging" might be sort of wrong by my standards (as someone in a capitalist culture), I think it it is not so much a judgment of culture that moves nations to act as a want for power or a want to remove power from others.

Culture Cage Match

The success of a culture is solely internalized and cannot be compared to other cultures. A culture's relies on the unity of its people. In other words, if the people are united and collectively support the ways of their culture, then the culture is successful. Economics, politics, and military strength are independent of a culture's success. Culture is a way of life, and if the way of life satisfies the people, then why wouldn't it be successful?

According this theory, communist countries were wrong to judge capitalist countries, and vice versa. What each culture decides and believes is completely internal and should only apply to the people involved. The tensions between the capitalist US and communist Russia did not necessarily rise out of "cultural warfare," but also mainly due to WWII aftermath, splitting up Germany, and a race for arms. Judging countries on their respective cultures, I believe, is just a way to show the tension. Cultural judgment is not necessarily tension itself, just a product.

Culture

The superiority of a culture has no bearing on how successful it is. It is impossible to define a superior country because superiority is all a matter of opinion. Each culture judges the others in reference to their own so superiority becomes almost irrelevant. Let's say Society A likes to eat fish. They're fish fanatics and all of them just adore fish. But when Society B says they don't like fish Society A looks down at them and calls them inferior for not having any fish. Every culture has it's own view on good and bad, so judging which culture is "best" has absolutely no meaning. Success however is slightly easier to quantify. The definition of success is based in whatever the popular opinion of it is, which at this time means economic and political power. During the Industrial revolution it meant increased output with minimal input of work, and during the Englightenment it meant new ideas being brewed inside scholarly brains. Now it is defined by how large the economies of our cultures are.



The phrase "the communist/capitalist countries of the world were wrong to judge the communist/capitalist countries based on outsider cultural knowledge. The only sound judgement comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts" may be true, but that certainly doesn't stop anyone from judging. The validity of this statement is somewhat marred by the fact that it will never be upheld. Judgement based on the ideals of our own society is inevitable. The only way to withold biased judgement is to withold judgement completely.

Don't judge a book by its cover

The most important part of any culture is unity and deciding to go behind that culture in the face of adversity. A culture can not be successful if everyone does not support it at all times. If there is some change, for example a group of people get colonized, they need to stay true to their roots in order to keep it successful. A culture can not be successful without everyone supporting it. If people abandon their culture in the face of adversity, then it will fail. In the case of capitalism vs communism, I think it is right that the statement is right that they judge each other incorrectly. Without understanding a culture, by witnessing it, it is hard to judge it properly. Nancy Snyderman said in her talk when she mentioned the 5 year old girl's mom who wanted her daughter to die than live a horrible life when she found out the girl's leg had to be amputated. Many people would have found this inhumane, but without actually experiencing their culture, you can't judge them.

I Feel Like Dinesh D'Souza

I'm initially inclined to argue that everything, culture included, is subjective. There is no definite ruling on one thing being "good" or "bad," "better" or "worse." Because no person is uninfluenced by biases, it seems as though there is no quantifier for one culture being superior over another. However, a culture exists because of the people who brought it to life. It survives because there are people who maintain it. It makes sense then that culture relies on its people. Since a culture seeks to benefit its people, it provides a clear way to measure its success relative to others: how happy people are living under the culture and how satisfied they are with it. People are the root of all cultures and civilizations, and people live for happiness, constantly striving to better their own life. A culture that does not impede people in their search for personal satisfaction - or better yet, a culture that improves itself to allow its people to be happy - is a superior culture in this sense. Perhaps arbitrary quantifiers such as power, wealth, or possessions seem to be the primary goal, but these are all forms of bringing happiness to the people living with the culture.

I almost completely disagree with this statement. As a country that is indeed biased to themselves has every right to judge another country in whatever way it pleases. Assuming that we are speaking from the country's point of view rather than the global perspective, a country can disagree with another's way of life relative to their own. Nothing prevents a country from doing this, especially when another country poses a potential threat to the well-being of another. The only part I agree with is that these judgments cannot be based on an outsider's perspective. As in any other situation, with inadequate information, facts can be portrayed inaccurately. In this case, a country's opinion, while perfectly valid, would be based off of false evidence. As I argued above, these quantifiers mean nothing if a country's people are unhappy. However, with a country, the consequences are far more severe. With low nationalism, countries will fall apart more easily from the inside. People do not care about political, economic, or scientific facts; people care about their individual lives.

"My culture is better than your culture..."

Obviously comparing success between cultures is a difficult task. "Success" is a vague term in itself, and especially when it is pertaining to something as subjective as someone's culture it is difficult to identify. A majority of people are biased to their own culture. That being said, people are likely to see the aspects in their own culture that are particularly successful, and label these as the most important aspects in a culture. For example, the United States has been successful in terms of power and military force for over a hundred years. Because of this, I think of power and military force to be one of the most important aspects in a culture. I do not think that all people are necessarily biased in favor of their own culture, as some people are actually completely against their culture. However, I do think that everyone has a preference to a certain culture or their idea of what a culture should be like, and when people say the most important aspect of a culture, that is in mind.

Because culture is so distinct and personal to the people, it is nearly impossible, and almost unfair to say that one culture is better or "more successful" than another. One could make the argument that the cultures that last the longest are the most successful, or that the cultures that are currently the most powerful in the world are the most successful. However, some cultures are actually better for certain people than others. It solely depends on what a certain person's priorities and ideals are whether or not they will be a fit for a certain culture. One way that I think could be fair to measure success is the impact that a culture has on another culture. If there are parts of a culture that are so successful for that given group of people that it inspires people of other cultures to adapt the same ideas, it is definitely a successful part of the culture. For example, if one group of people has new technology, and another culture is inspired to use the same technology for themselves because they think it will better their own culture, the first culture has measured some sort of success. If a culture has an that another culture adapts, it is basically to say that the idea is "better" than the other culture's idea because they have chosen it over their own. This is a fair way to measure the success of a culture.

In terms of the theory about judgment, I do not know if I think it is quite fair to judge other countries, although it is completely natural. Of course people are going to compare their country with another and decide which ideas are better. I still cannot decide if I think that it isn't fair for people to judge other countries, but I certainly do not blame people for doing it. The fact is, I definitely think that certain cultures are superior to others. I think that government, economic success, laws and values, and power are all ways to "rank" cultures. There is always the internal aspect of a culture, which is why it is always up to opinion to label a "better" country or culture. However, I think that anyone is entitled to their opinion of culture, and it is fair for them to judge other cultures and call them better or worse than their own. People of other countries can have opinions for themselves as well and say that the culture that I live in is worse than theirs. Passing a judgment based on "social, economic, and political facts" is very similar to passing a judgment based on one's interpretation of a culture. One can judge other cultures all they want, as long as they state their views as their opinions and not facts, because other people also have the right to disagree and state their opinion.

Nicole took the only clever idea I had...

I don't think there is a definitive way to measure cultural success because it depends too much on your personal definition of success. For instance, looking at the practicality of a culture as a measure of success is different than measuring success by power. If power was your definition of success, then it would be easy to tell which is the superior culture. All you would have to do is look at which culture has the most money in the world; the strongest economy. Personally, I think that success is relative. I think it depends on what works for a certain group of people. The culture in Africa is entirely different than the culture in America, but the fact that their culture wouldn't succeed in America doesn't make ours better all together. All it means is that our culture works better for us, while theirs works better for them. They are both successful in their own place. If a culture works for the group of people that it belongs to without major problems, then that means it is successful, at least to me. I don't think that people have a right to judge whether other cultures are better or worse than their own, because there's no way they know for sure if they haven't tried it. Judging the success of other cultures never ends well. We know this is true because Hitler thought his culture was the best and looked what happened there. Mass genocide.

I tend to agree with the statement "the (capitalist/communist) countries of the world were wrong to judge the (communist/capitalist) countries of the world based on outsider cultural knowledge. The only sound judgment comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts." but only if success is a measure of power, as I said before. From a global stand point, it is only fair to judge which society is successful by looking at facts, otherwise you end up with a completely biased opinion. Though in retrospect, they should have had an outsider judge the two societies side by side, that way they could end up with a truly unbiased opinion of which culture was doing better. What is needed is some sort of global jury of completely unbiased jurors. They would be able to judge who was more successful. But this, of course, is just an errant thought because it is impossible to find people without any sort of bias towards the world.

Heartbreak Warfare

While no one culture is fundamentally better than all others, some are admittedly more successful. To answer to the fact that there is such a thing as success in terms of culture: can we truly call a culture that no longer has any members today successful? The ones that died out did so for a reason and, more often than not, this reason is that they were trumped by the technology or beliefs of another. Cultural success is judged by an ability to maintain the people's happiness, and through doing so reach for longevity and strength of numbers. If we look to our experience with colonization, in Africa for example, neither the native culture nor that of the Europeans was necessarily better - they were both distinctive and useful in their own rights - yet the Europeans were still the ones to succeed with colonization and spread of their own core beliefs and education. If Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart is to be believed, the people of the native culture were already unhappy - for this reason their own culture was easily dismantled. Some might say that success is based on longevity, but if you analyze the reason for this continuation, it is usually because the culture is able to satisfy its members. Unhappy people make for a short-lived culture while the opposite is true of the happy.
So while neither belief is necessarily better, capitalists do have a right to judge the communist system by the reaction of the people. Had members been satisfied with communism and all that it offered, then it could be deemed successful, but it was not. In fact it was recieved with hostility in many places as was evidenced by the Hungarian Revolution against soviet leaders during the Cold War. So, to a degree, I do believe that the success of a culture can be determined by hard, cold facts in the sense that a rebellion or low approval ratings imply dissatisfaction. Really though, the temperature of the populous must be taken to asses the success of capitalism or communism. To some extent, the statement that capitalists and communists can judge each other from the view point of an apposing cultural view does have validity.

Culture: a Nation's Secret Weapon

What makes a culture successful is the willingness of it's people to support it. A successful culture has it's entire population behind it's back. The people will fight until they can fight no more for their culture. Also, a successful culture needs to be able to change. A culture that does not change cannot be successful. It must be able to adapt to the new times, and change depending on the occurring events. You measure cultural success by how many people stay with a culture, even when presented with other options. This relates to how enthusiastic people are about their culture. A culture with people who take pride in it will be much stronger than one who's people could care less about it.

"The (capitalist/communist) countries of the world were wrong to judge the (communist/capitalist) countries of the world based on outsider cultural knowledge. The only sound judgment comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts." This statement is only partially true. Both sides should come to a conclusion about the other with a combination of the culture, the economy, the politics, and the scientific aspects of each group. Culture is just as important when assessing the other nation. Although it might appear that "hard economic, political, or scientific facts" are the only important aspects of a nation, a nation is only as strong as it's culture.

Culture and Judgement

As I stated during our discussion today, I don't believe that one culture can be considered more "successful" than the other. You can say that a certain culture produces happier people, richer people, smarter people, kinder people, whatever. But success itself isn't something you can measure. It is another idea created by people that doesn't actually exist. What is success, really? Having a good job and a big house? If this is so, than maybe we can measure a culture's success on average house size. But really, success is just a human interpretation of facts. It cannot be measured unless it is given a concrete definition that everyone can agree upon.

The communists and capitalists were not wrong to judge each other based on cultural knowledge. You can judge someone on anything, it just may not be a very accurate judgement. Because they were both so biased against each other, both sides probably had a horribly inaccurate image of the other in their minds. However, this doesn't make their judgement morally wrong. The most effective and accurate judging would most likely come from hard, concrete facts. However, this doesn't mean that we are oblidged to only judge people based on facts about them we have gleaned. It just depends on how truthful and unbiased you want your judgement to be.

Sorry about the evasive answers. I'm feeling philosophical and argumentative today.

Connections With the Cold War

I just read about the emergence of the United States as a global superpower from 1945-1975. The United States's political influence was everywhere in its attempts to stop the spread of communism during the Cold War, its economy was booming and, perhaps most importantly, the US's culture spread to many countries around the world. At the same time Communism was at its peak from the 1950s-1970s. Despite internal problems like the death and denunciation of Stalin, the revealing suppression of individual movements, and squabbles between China and the Soviet Union, communism was just as influential globally as American democracy and capitalism.

"Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." A famous quote about history whose author fails me. The United States and the Soviet Union during the years after World War II almost came to a nuclear war in a clear repeat of the rivalry between European nations in the years leading up to World War I.

The Industrial Revolution and the advanced technology Europe possessed allowed countries like Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia to emerge as the more powerful countries in the world. But the new power also came with an insatiable desire for more power and the countries engaged in an arms race. Tensions between these countries about weapons along with many other factors exploded and led to the Great War where millions of citizens were killed.

A very similar chain of events occurred between the international rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Both were powerful after defeating the Germans in World War II. Both countries wanted to be more powerful than the other and went to great lengths to assert themselves. Just like the great arms race leading up to World War I, the US and the USSR built up their military capability, to the nth degree because this time nuclear weapons were being built. The principal difference was that these tensions resulted in a World War with many countries being involved. Many countries were involved in the struggle between the two global superpowers, but luckily an actual war was avoided. Narrowly avoided.