Mmmm, Chocolate

There are so many things I learned this year, it's impossible to say the most important. I think it might be that all things history can be related, but can also be completely distinct. You can almost relate everything in history, but you can distinguish everything too. Studying history made me realize that in history, as in life, it all depends on how you look at something. It's kind of like chocolate covered pretzels. Can lump them all together, or, you can eat one pretzel at a time, making it individual. Let's look at revolutions. Sure, the French Rev, Industrial Rev, Algerian Rev, etc. are all revolutions. But when you study one in particular, you can see it's individuality and specificity emerge. Similarly with flags. So many countries show their nationalistic pride by waving their countries flags. They are all in the "flags" category, but each nation has it's own flag. Just like looking at a pretzel with individual clumps of chocolate. It's somewhat of a stretch, but I like to think about things in terms of food. Especially chocolate.

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.

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?

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.

Brrr. It's Cold in Here.

Like many things in history, the Cold war is similar to previous international conflict. Parallels can bee seen in both world wars, as well as in ancient China.

The cold war is similar to World War I because there were many invasions. In WWI, it was a chain reaction of invasions that eventually lead to an international conflict. During the time of the cold war, China went to war against Vietnam, who then invaded Vietnam. Also, the Soviet Union invaded many countries, like Czechoslovakia and Hungary who were their supposed allies. This part of the cold war parallel the Manchu takeover of China. The Manchu kept control of the Ming Dynasty by force, like the Soviet Union kept control of it's invaded states.

There are also many similarities between the cold war and World War II. In each situation, technology played a major role. In World War II, whoever had the newest technology had the clear advantage in the war. Although no bombs or weapons were used in the cold war, technology still played an important part. Whoever had the most powerful nuclear weapons had the advantage.

Pirate Peace

The wold needs an organization like this now. After two world wars, the we know how bad the living conditions, death tolls, etc have gotten. They could get worse if we don't try to keep peace throughout the world. If we never aspire to have world peace, we never will. Although it's unlikely to keep the entire world at peace, it's the right idea to hope. This organization addresses more than one area that need peace and protection. They are making universal rules, "more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" Nothing is forcing these countries to not break the rules, other than the honor code. The only thinkable punishment would be to go to war against that country, however, that is against the UN's goals. At least, there are hopes and goals that people can look to to feel bad about breaking.

Is Peaceful Peace-keeping Possible?

The document can be changed throughout time. What was written in 1945 was edited all the way in the early 1970s. The Preamble says the people of the U.N. are "determined." They have specific goals and ideas. They want to save the future generations from the terrors of war (like WWI and WWII). They also want to improve life for everyone. Voltaire comes to mind when they mention wanting to practice "tolerance." State Farm pops into my head when they wish to live as good neighbors. They want to unite their strength and exhibit their "full powers" to maintain peace in the world. Members of the United Nations must do as much as they can to prevent the disruptance of peace. Leaders are elected, and have one representative each. The Security Council must submit papers to make sure they are working well. Members sign to agree to any decision made by the Court. Any member of the Security Council or the General Assembly can ask for advice from the International Court of Justice.

The goals of the charter are to unite powerful nations, and maintain world peace. It tries to prevent war, and prove that it can be kept. It tries to be fair, and make the decisions equal for all members.

There are a few problems with this piece. Only members of six countries have members of the security council. That does not make up most of the world. The document's goal is to have world peace. However, it states that "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest." If everybody wants to go to war, the country should go to war, according to this document. Throughout the charter, it instructs members to take necessary measures to maintain peace. However, it never states how to maintain peace peacefully. How can this be possible all the time? It needs to tell people how to avoid going to war to maintain peace.

Speaking Slowly

Geography plays a huge role in the Holocaust. In May of 1939, many Jewish refugees decided to flea the Nazis. The St. Louis left Hamburg taking 937 passengers to Havana, Cuba, all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to get away from the Nazis. Cuba was an ocean away from Nazi Germany; there was very little chance Germany would be able to take over Cuba. Since the vast majority were rejected from Cuba and the United States, the St. Louis returned to Europe, where the remaining refugees went to France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Here, because these countries were so close to Germany, the refugees were not completely safe. When the Nazis took over France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, many of the refugees were "again trapped under Nazi rule." They were not physically far enough away to escape the Germans. Because France, the Netherlands, and Belgium border Germany, they were at risk of being taken over.

Concentration and extermination camps were present throughout Europe, mostly in Germany and Poland. Six extermination camps were set up in Poland, since that's where many Jews lived. These camps were set up near where the most Jews lived so that the Germans did not have to transport them far from their homes. Ghettos were also set up where the most Jews resided. Warsaw and Lodz, first and second with most Jews, respectively, had the two largest ghettos. The Germans did not have to transport them far to contain them in designated areas. Once they gathered the Jews together, it was easier to transport them to concentration camps and extermination camps.

Unlike the concentration camps, resistance to the Nazis could be found all around Europe. Both Jewish and non-Jewish resistance organizations were running throughout Europe. There were may uprisings in ghettos and concentration camps, which were calmed by the Nazis. Resistance wasn't all violent. There were members of the resistance who hid Jews, and smuggled them to neutral territory. They were able to get the Jews out of the occupied countries nearby to safety.

There is definitely a huge bias against the Nazi's on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website. Nonetheless, the maps provide useful information with real numbers, and maps that explain what happened. The speaker speaks slowly and clearly, so that everybody can understand him, even if they don't know anything about the Holocaust. The website believes that the visitors to the website are against Nazism, and are curious to find out more about the Holocaust. The maps suggest that the museum is interactive and easy to understand. The museum counts a memorial but the website does not. The museum is tangible, and has actual artifacts in it. The website just has pictures and videos, but nothing to touch. No real artifacts can be found on the site.

What we Want to Know

Monument: The Children's Holocaust Memorial (from the movie Paper Clips)

What is the significance of all the details of the monument (what they put inside, how they decorated it, etc.)

What else is inside besides paper clips?

How does this monument differ from other Holocaust monuments?

What is the significance of the place the monument was built (small-town Tennessee)

Does the fact that the monument was built by children make it any different than a regular monument?

Did anyone in the town object to the monument being built?

The follow-up story: what happened after they made the movie? Has the school done anything else to commemorate more events in history?

Why paper clips? (i know we read a little bit about this)
Did they have extra paper clips?

How long did it take?

How many visitors do they get a year? avg

Angel of Grief

Questions:

What does it commemorate?

Why was it moved to Stanford (or why was the replica created for Stanford)?

Who built it (the original) and why?

When and where was it built? Why was this time and place significant?

Does it have any historical significance?

Why is it called the angel of grief? significance?

Woman and angel-> significance?

Is it well known?

Reanalyzing the Picture

NBC aired this piece in 1995 to remind people what happened. Although the bomb was dropped 50 years ago, many people still question whether or not it was the best decision. This NBC video provides (relatively) unbiased information so that people can form an educated opinion about the dropping of the bomb. NBC had individuals speak for both sides of the war. Survivors of the bombings told their stories, and members of the U.S. army present also told us their views. Major Charles Sweeney explains that, by dropping the bombs and not invading Japan, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. The NBC documentary was released 50 years after the bombing to encourage people to reanalyze the situation at the time. If the U.S. did not drop the bomb, perhaps we would not have won the war.

Why the Jews, Hitler?

In my original blog post about World War II, my wondered why Hitler chose the Jews as victims. After doing some research, I discovered that Hitler believed socialism was a Jewish conspiracy. Hitler observed that many socialist leaders, like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky, were Jewish. He believed the Jews were discouraging the war effort, and often spoke out against them. The Jews had been prosecuted over the years, so were supporting socialism because of the promised equality. Once Hitler was recognized as an enemy to socialism, he was taken in by the German Army, and lectured soldiers. He told them that Germany lost the Great War because the Jews and Marxists had betrayed their country. Since socialism was popular after the Great War, Hitler called his new political set up 'Nationalist' Socialism to appeal to the country. In his plans, all people of 'German blood' would be considered equal, and the 'aliens' (such as Jews) would lose their rights as citizens. Hitler became more popular, and now, he propagated that Jews were the cause of modern art, pornography, and prostitution, as well as the cause of Germany's defeat in World War I. He also claimed that they were plotting to take over the world. This all happened before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

Although I did not find why Hitler picked the Jews in my research, I can guess. The Jews had been picked on before, and Hitler had a root of hatred against them. Another explanation is that Hitler thought the Jews would be easy targets, since they were a minority and had been in the past.

Faulty Argument

It's October 1st, 1938. Dorothy Thompson makes a speech that makes me think. Do we really want to see another war? I know I don’t. We just got out of the Great War. What Germany is doing is preventing a war from occurring. What Dorothy Thompson was saying is not the whole truth. Her faulty argument is based on the time it took to make the decisions, the inequality of those decisions, and the execution of the decisions.

             Dorothy claims that four hours is not enough time to come up with the best decision. I disagree. There was no other way, and they saw this, and knew right away what they needed to do. There was no need for time. The longer they waited, the farther away they would be from finding an answer. It’s like eating breakfast. You don’t sit there for 40 minutes trying to decide what to eat. You take at few minutes to decide to eat a bowl of cereal because that’s all you have.

            Ms. Thompson believes that the decisions made at the conference were unequal. These decisions were necessary to prevent a war from happening. One nation has to step up and take the lead to prevent war. It’s only right to reward them for stepping up.

            In Ms. Thompson’s speech, she claims that how the decision was executed was incorrect. However, these measures were taken to prevent a war. Imagine a group of kindergarteners playing a card game. If one group of them plays the game differently, you are not going to let them play.

             Overall, Dorothy Thompson was wrong. She did not see the advantages of not going to war, and was pressuring people to fight.

PEACE? What is this "Peace"?

It's October 1st, 1938. Dorothy Thompson makes a speech that makes me think. Is it really fair what Germany is doing in Czechoslovakia? I don't think so. It appears that because of the short time period it took to make decisions, the inequality of those decisions, and the execution of the decisions.

First of all, the conference lasted four hours. The Treaty of Versailles took three years to be decided on. The decisions of the conference will change lives. People's lives all over Chekoslovakia will change drastically depending on the verdict. The fact that it took merely four hours to decide to evacuate parts of Chekoslovakia shows that the deciders did not have enough time to think about all of the consequences of their decisions. In the Treaty of Versailles, there was plenty of time to think about what would happen if each alternate decision was made, and the leaders chose what appeared to be the best option. Four hours seems hardly enough time to come up with one plan for the nations.

In the Treaty of Versailles, no one nation got all the benefits and no one nation got all the detriments. In the Munich conference, it sounds like Germany gets everything, while Czechoslovakia loses it all. Not exactly my idea of fair. I believe that the Czechoslovakian people should have a say in what happens to them.

What happens to the Czechoslovakian people when they are forced to evacuate? Where do they go? They are forced to emigrate. They must pick up their things and leave or face the German Army. These people did not do anything wrong, so why do they deserve to face the German Army?

I disagree with the outcome of the Munich Conference. People should be able to decide what happens to them, and not be forced to leave their homes. (The alternative being confronted by the German Army.)

WWII Thoughts and Questions

What I think I know about WWII:

6 million Jews were killed, 11 million people (Jews, homosexuals, handicapped people, Gypsies, etc)

Hitler was leader of Germany

Hitler Youth was popular

Jews forced to wear star of David

Jews sent to ghettos and concentration camps (terrible conditions)

Jews many killed in gas chambers and by starvation or illnesses from bad conditions

Some people kept Jewish families hidden, or took in Jewish children

Questions:

Why did Hitler pick the Jews as enemies?

Wasn't Hitler's grandmother Jewish?

Animal Farm... connections

Animal Farm started out with Manor Farm, a peaceful working farm owned and run by Mr. Jones. The main animals on the farm are: Old Major, Napoleon, Snowball, Squealer (the pigs,) Boxer and Clover (work horses,) Mollie (a silly mare,) Muriel (a goat,) Benjamin (a donkey,) Moses (a sneaky raven.) The animals revolted against Mr. Jones because of the persuasive words of Old Major. Old Major died, and the pigs took it upon their responsibility to take control. Snowball and Napoleon in particular stepped up as leaders. However, they disagreed on everything. Napoleon kept sneaking around, keeping secrets, and seemed to be up to no good. Up to this point, the animals were fairly considered equal, besides being under command of the pigs. There was talk going around about building a windmill. Snowball initiated the idea, while Napoleon strongly opposed it. When the animals were going to vote with Snowball in favor of building the windmill, Napoleon called out puppies he had raised in secret to attack Snowball. Fearing his life, he ran away, barely escaping. Later on, Napoleon decides to build the windmill, and claims that the plans were all of his, and were stolen by Snowball. Boxer, who is slaving away on the windmill (waking up early, working during the night) recieves no compensation or rewards for his devout loyalty. Although the pigs do not usually do any physical labor, the pigs received special treatment. They slept in the farmhouse on beds, sat on raised platforms during meeting, and slept in, to name a few. Although many of these privileges were against the original commandments, Squealer was able to convince all the animals that it was all in their heads. Along with Squealer's persuasive speeches, the vicious growling dogs helped the animals decision to keep quiet.

The story ties into history in several aspects. First, the farm was like communism. Everybody started out relatively equal, but soon, the elite leaders received subtle advantages. For example, the animals started out having the right to vote. Later on, Napoleon and his committee of piggies make all the decisions. Although in communism, everything is supposed to be equal, only the leaders make important decisions. The vicious dogs are like the Cheka. They were a secret group that kept the pigs and the communist leaders in power. Napoleon, like Stalin, is trying to purge anybody who might come to power. Napoleon got rid of Snowball like Stalin got rid of Trotsky. Animal Farm is also similar to fascism. In fascism, the government completely controls civilians' lives. In Animal Farm, the pigs assign each animal jobs and a strict schedule every week. Animal Farm is also like the situation in France before the French Revolution. The nationalistic revolters took pride in their revolutionary actions, and The Marseillaise was their "pump up" song. The animals sing Beasts of England to get themselves excited about the Animal Farm, and encourage them to be nationalistic.

Orwell's motivation was to get his beliefs about the government out without using actual names. Had he used real names, he would have been strictly reprimanded. Orwell is venting about the situation, and to us it's obvious he is telling the story of the government.

Fascism vs. Communism

Although Fascism and communism are both controlling political parties at opposite ends of the extremist spectrum, they share many similarities. Fascism is all the way to the right. They believe that in extreme nationalism and dictatorship. Communism on the other hand, is way to the left. Everything is owned by the government and shared equally. However, communism is also run by a dictator. In both cases, one person is in charge of the entire country. Even though they believe different things, both nations are controlled in a similar manner. Besides being similar in the way they are governed, they completely against each other. There were propaganda posters in nations putting down the other party. They are similar in that they oppose each other. Even though they have opposing beliefs, they are similar in the way they portray them.

Just a Claim...

Although the Russians claimed the French Revolution was their model, the only similarity between them was that lower class people overthrew the current form of government in their country. First, the people were upset in the first place for completely different reasons. The French were upset because they had a very poor economy at the time, and there was very little food for the people, while the king feasted and lead a luxurious lifestyle. The Russians were upset because they wanted to get out of the war. In the French Revolution, members of the middle class were the ones who revolted, not the poorest of the poor. In the Russian Revolution, members of the middle class were part of the group that was being overthrown by the lower class. After the French revolution, France went under the control of Napoleon. After the Russian Revolution, Russia became communist. No difference there. At all. Okay, huge difference. One final difference is that the Communist party stayed in power for over 25 years. Napoleon didn't rule nearly that long.

Overall, sure Russia can say they modeled their Revolution after the French Revolution. But let's be honest. Times change. The French Revolution occurred over a century before the Russian Revolution. It's like saying I want to my life to be just like my great- great grandmother's. Sure I could say it, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Berlin, Nazis, and a Cabaret

Berlin/environment:

From the film, we can get a sense of what Berlin was like at the time. The anti communist propaganda suggests that communism was not in favor at the time. Throughout the movie, people kept saying things that suggested that the economy of the time was not doing great. Sally says: "everybody is broke of course," implying that it is a well known (and obvious) fact. There is a song in the cabaret called: "Money Makes the World Go Round." The fact that Berlin has little money suggests that the city as a whole is not advancing quickly.

The poor economy and political unsureness encourages wealthier people to attend the cabaret, and forget about their problems, and encourages the poorer people to spend time drinking in an outside bar.

Nazis:

The Nazis were seen throughout the movie in different places, and receiving different reactions. A Nazi collecting money in a tin can is thrown out of the cabaret by the manager. The manager was clearly not a Nazi fan. Later on, Nazi's are seen beating up the manager, and we never know if he makes it out alive. A possible Nazi veteran is seen cruising down the sidewalk in a wheelchair with maybe a leg missing. He appears to be homeless. While at Max's country house at the garden bar, a young Nazi teenager stands up and starts to sing a song repeating "tomorrow belongs to me." First, other youths stand up and start singing along, followed by older people. While driving home from the countryside, the stars see a murdered person in the street, most likely committed by the Nazis. Brian wants to let the Nazi's take care of the communists, then they can take care of the Nazis. However, after the murder, Max asks Brian if he still thinks that plan will work. At the end, some Nazis are seen in the audience in the Cabaret.

The Nazis were a revengeful group of people who tried to take over by means of violence, panhandling, and the power of youth.

Cabaret:

The Cabaret is shown as being silly, ridiculous, and almost circus-like at times. The creepy opening man tells the audience to "leave their troubles behind" and that in the Cabaret, "everything is beautiful." In reality, not everything was beautiful; it was some sort of a joke. What they are showing is what is really happening. It is a fun-house mirrored version of reality. For example, they flash back and forth between the cabaret manager being beat up and the girls on stage being slapped by the opening man. Irony is present throughout much of the cabaret. For example, Sally says that her dead previous landlord was the "happiest corpse I've ever seen."

The cabaret is a garnished escape for the wealthier people of Berlin that puts on ridiculous versions of actual real life events that are happening.

Tim James's Talk

Yesterday at lunch, I went to Martin to see Tim James talk. He spoke about his voyage to West Africa over the summer. What he said was fascinating. He spoke a little about colonization.He visited Senegal, a previous French colony, and Gambia, a previous British colony. Senegal forms a backwards C around Gambia. Tim said that the the fastest way to get across Senegal is to go through Gambia. He needed a separate VISA to get through Gambia. Without it, he would have had to drive all the way around. One thing I thought was particularly interesting was that there were no bridges across the Gambia River. They had to use fairies instead. Being a big fan of food, I was intrigued when he said that some of the food he had at some patisseries were up there with those of Paris. When I think of good patisseries, I think of Paris and France, not West Africa. I guess West Africa was more foreign to me, and I knew very little about it. It was also interesting when Tim said that most flights to Senegal went through it's previous colonizer, France. And how most flight to the Gambia went through it's previous colonizer, England. Why is this? So that the old colonizers can still make a profit? Or does it involve language? I learned so much from this talk. I knew very little about West Africa, and now feel I have slightly better knowledge about it.