What a year!

A-Block MWH with Mama Pugs: a class I always looked forward to.

Junior year will feel very empty next year without a class like sophomore history. Not only did we have the opportunity to learn an incredible amount of material in a year's time, we learned about HOW to learn, study, and analyze (and have fun too!). After this year I know what it means to be a historian. I learned how to prepare an argument and how to develop a strong idea and eventually a thesis based on evidence that we have seen throughout history. History is not about learning facts and events that have occurred in the modern world, but rather seeing a connection between the way things happened. This notion was made clear to me this year. I learned that two abstract ideas that seem completely unrelated at the surface, for a completely random example, the Carolands Mansion in Hillsborough and the Terracotta Warriors in Xian China, can be connected to each other so strongly...even strongly enough to write ten pages about! I will do my best to take the things that I learned to be so fun about history with me next year and throughout the rest of my historical career. Thank you Mama Pugs for the tremendous year you have given us! Please come back to your true passion of teaching history after next year as you are fed up with teaching just the boring English for an entire year.

"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.

UNsignificant

The UN will never truly make a difference in our world. First of all, the goals are implausible:

Target 1:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day

Target 2:
Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

Target 3:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

How can the United Nations expect to accomplish these goals? To me it seems like the problems of poverty and hunger are only on the rise. The United Nations is unrealistic. MAYBE there is a chance that they can start to get things done once they talk about specifically what they are doing and start with goals that are just a step in the right direction. Perhaps instead of trying to achieve full employment, they could have a more reachable goal such as to employ a specific number of people and to have a method of achieving the goal. Secondly, how can people support the UN? By getting their voice heard? The UN isn't doing anything anyway, what makes anyone think that when they say some idea, it will suddenly get done. I'm not saying that it is necessarily the fault of the UN, as they have good intentions, but their goals are just simply unreachable.

Geography and the Holocaust

The geography in Europe made the Nazis' lives much easier during the Holocaust. There's no chance of even trying to control the world if you are not in contact with or in a very close proximity to the countries that are the first target. It makes it easier to invade a country when it is just a train ride away. "World War II and the Holocaust," displayed just how convenient it was to go to a surrounding country with the railroad situation. Germany never would have made it as far as they did in the war, or even attempted to do so if the geography were not more perfect for them. Germany was able to go in just about any direction, as there was nothing holding them back. The addition of a plan like Germany's and the perfect geographical situation made it possible for Germany to achieve what they did in WWII.

As it is difficult to present information about something as horrific as the Holocaust without a strong opinion about how it went, there is certainly a bias at the USHMM. Their website will of course display the same opinions that the creators have in the museum. I think that it is easy to look over the bias and disregard it because such a strong percentage of the viewers of the museum or the website most likely agree with what the people of the USHMM have to say. To show the Holocaust in a certain light and to go into grueling detail about how each person was brutally murdered during the Holocaust definitely presents bias. There are facts and statistics in the Holocaust that do not tend to have as much impact on people hearing about it, but they still do not lie, and they give a true understanding of just how bad the Holocaust was. I think the USHMM is a monument because it brings a memory of what happened during the Holocaust.

Monument Questions

Terracotta Warriors:

Why are the warriors still preserved today?

How and why are they kept in such good shape?

What significance does the monument have to Xian, China?

What main figures are commemorated by the "warriors"?

Are any warriors or generals built after specific people?

Why does the monument attract so many people?

1995 - Atomic Bomb

It is always difficult to speak against the general public's opinion or actions. When there is such a strong majority that wants to do a certain thing, such as dropping an atomic bomb for the sake of safety, to publicly call it criminal or immoral is very hard to do. NBC made the decision to wait until 1995 to air "The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb" because they needed to wait for a time when people would not see the showing as critical as they would in the past. By 1995 there was a division and definitely a fair amount of people who agreed with NBC's piece. It became a lot easier to air something like this or to disagree with the original majority when people have taken a step forward and now in hindsight can start to agree that dropping the atomic bomb was maybe not the right decision. However, I also think that those with the fairest opinion are those who actually lived in the time of the war, because they understood the threat to their safety that we obviously haven't felt. Regardless of whether it was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb, it is certainly easier to say it was wrong now when people are not living in the time and there is not such a strong opinion saying the opposite.

Go Munich Conference!

The Munich Conference was a great success. The goal was to achieve peace, and this did indeed occur. I understand that Czechoslovakia did not have a representation in the conference, however I do not see this as unfair. In fact, this is even a long term advantage for the Czechs. I do not think that Czechoslovakia would have seen the big picture of what is best overall. In the conference, the Czech people are granted peace and protection, which they did not really have before. I think that the leaders of all of Europe's countries that did represent in the Munich Conference had a fair viewpoint and good knowledge about what is best, and most peaceful, for everyone.

WWII

Although I am a boy, I cannot say I have a lot of World War II knowledge. I do know a lot about the holocaust, which is a part of the war. Hitler was the leader of the Nazis, and many minorities were targeted such as homosexuals, gypsies, and mostly, Jews. Six million total Jews were killed, mainly in concentration camps and gas chambers. There is also of course the bombings with Japan, where Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the US later bombed Hiroshima.

I want to know why so many countries got involved in WWII. I also want to know how each individual country was influenced by WWII.

Fascism and Communism

The key difference between fascism and communism is that they want different forms of success. A fascist nation considers itself successful when the entire country has succeeded. Fascists believe that doing what is best is to do that which benefits the entire country. If the government thinks that it will help their nation to mistreat certain minorities or citizens, they do not care about the negative effects on the individuals. Because of this, fascism is a very violent, government type which is often seen as promoting all types of prejudice. This is mainly where fascism differs from communism. Instead of looking at the overall country's success, communism focuses on the success of each citizen. Because of this, the violence and prejudice is not seen in a communist nation, like in fascism. Wealth is practically shared evenly across the a communist nation. Both fascism and communism are similar but they have different overarching goals.

French vs. Russian Revolution

The triggers for what started both the French and Russian Revolutions are very similar. The idea is that the lower class needs more say and power. Obviously these ideas are more modern, because they are similar to more progressive democratic governments. I do not know if the Russian Revolution actually looked to the French Revolution to end up influencing themselves. Russia just coincidentally had similar struggles and was in the need for a similar revolution. I think that Strayer's claim was not meant to be necessarily literal, but he was trying to say that like the French Revolution, the basis of the Russian Revolution started with a need for the government to represent more of the people.

Cabaret Theses

Berlin paralleled the worldwide norm, or at least stereotype, in 1931. The film showed Berlin practically always in the darkness, and in the city, there was not much to be cheering about. Everyone was always in the need of money, and no one had it. The city is completely filled with the "Pre WWII attitude" where everyone is depressed. There were deaths of people in the streets and the Nazis were starting to leave their trace around the city with propaganda and rallies. The Cabaret is a place for people to go in order to escape from the depression they are living in. It was definitely helpful, at least temporarily, for these people to go to the Cabaret. The Cabaret also made references to things that were going on outside in the real world. The Cabaret had an effect on people by taking away from their outside experiences, but also giving them a better understanding of the times. The film Cabaret was also a great representation of the rapid growth of the Nazi party. The Nazis shared propaganda and raised awareness gradually, to eventually become the strongest nation in the world. Originally in the Cabaret, we saw very little of the Nazis, and they were actually discriminated against. As the film progressed, we saw more actions from the Nazis such as killing people and raising awareness, and growth of the party. We got to understand how the growth of the Nazi party really spread when a youth boy sung a song called "tomorrow belongs to me" in a big public venue, and eventually got everyone to sing along with him. The lyrics of the song represented the future success that the Nazis would have.

Taliban ≠ Fascist

The Taliban is a nation of violence. There is no doubt about that. In the Taliban, people will kill people just for the sake of being against them. This warfare is not based on any military. The Taliban is not a government, it is just a bunch of people who have radical opinions and act on them with violence. Because of its lack of a military and organization, the Taliban is not a Fascist movement.

Fascism is a strict government in which those who do not follow are persecuted, and often killed. A true fascist nation is totalitarian, meaning the government has total control over the subjects. There never really has been a true fascist nation all the way through, but totalitarianism must be at least attempted at in order to be fascist. The key to fascism is a structured government and military. Without this structure, there is only chaos, and no fascism. This is the case with the Taliban.

Another quality of fascism that the Taliban does not satisfy is the promotion and advertizing of fascism and government. Fascists have a strong sense of nationalism towards their fascist nation. A key aspect of fascism is the propaganda. The Taliban works off of sheer violence and intimidation. People are practically forced to join the Taliban, as their lives are often threatened. While the Taliban gains supporters through force, fascism tends to rely more on intellectual persuasion.

The argument that the Taliban is a fascist movement is based off the fact that the Taliban promotes violence based on sexism, and takes a strong stance on keeping tradition, just like fascism. However, these are just a few qualities of fascism that are not even the main points. In this sense, any violent or racist movement is fascist. This certainly is not the case because unless this violence is happening as an attempt to strengthen the government, it is not fascist. The nature of fascism is to help the government through each act. The Taliban kills innocent people for the sake of killing them, not for the sake of strengthening themselves. This is a crucial fact when considering the type of movement of the Taliban. I do not think that it can be associated with any formal type of government.

Nazi Propaganda

This picture represents a truck full of people trying to advertise their views traveling through a city. The big message on their truck translates to "We don't admit any sabotage of the constructive work of Hitler." The picture was taken in 1935. The propaganda is actually in this case on the truck itself. People put this message on their truck to deny working against Hitler. This message promotes working for and with Hitler and the Nazi movement. The picture on the truck looks to show diversity in people, especially in terms of religion. I'm not quite sure as to the reason this is displayed on the truck, but it could be to give examples of what people should be persecuted. Although I am not sure about what the particular stereotypes of different religions were at the time, the picture on the truck is most likely displaying the stereotypical examples of people in different religions. This is an example of not only the propaganda posters during this time, but also the other ways people advertised their beliefs.

PTSD Reflection

Hearing about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in WWI, is very easy to understand the surface level of reasons PTSD occurs. Of course, there is tons of danger in the trenches and because the war was fought on such a global scale, there were clearly problems with PTSD worldwide. However, the issue is not something that is easy to understand to its deepest level. PTSD has occurred as a result of every war in mankind. Through reading these articles and hearing all the stories, I have begun to grasp a much truer understanding of what it is that causes PTSD, and how much of a problem it really is.

Hearing that, for example, millions of people have suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is not nearly descriptive enough to paint a picture of what soldiers and veterans go through. What captured me was the specific stories of people who are alive today, or have recently died as a result of the trauma they faced in the military. It is tragic to hear stories about people who have come home from the war and never gotten the graphic war scenes out of their heads. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder causes people to never forget the images that they saw in battle, which has a lasting effect on them and others. Many people practically lost their hearts in battle and never got them back when they returned home. It is almost like even when they come home, they never leave the war.

Just as much pain PTSD causes soldiers, it has a similar effect on people close to the people who were traumatized. Certain videos talked about what a terrible effect the mindset of soldiers leaves on people around them. Many people who came back from war after terrible experiences practically radiated their depression. Family members said that just after being on the phone with the person, they would hang up and be quite depressed themselves. The stress that people have after visualizing their war experiences leave feelings of pain, guilt, depression, and fear. These emotions penetrate the minds of soldiers in such a deep way, that suicide is a somewhat common response. This is of course worse than anything else for people who know the person who killed themselves. Just one person's war experience often leaves such a mark on a family. It can leave somewhat of a domino effect, because the person who will kill himself because of what he sees, is causing the same pain on his family that caused his stress in the first place.

Treaty of Versailles

The treaty of Versailles is the perfect example of a compromise. Like any major compromise in history, everyone loses. The biggest loser was Germany, whose economy and army was practically destroyed. Of course, because the allied nations were the creators of this treaty, the advantage was in their favor. However, the main objective was to promote peace around the world. There wasn't necessarily peace throughout the world, but from an official, legal standpoint, the war was over. There was a slight backfire with the Treaty, that lead to some countries, particularly Germany, creating grudges against others. The effects of this were shown in later years, and were definitely partially responsible for WWII.

WWI and PTSD

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can occur after any battle or fight. The first time that it was seen on a mass, global scale however, was in World War I. This is possibly the time when PTSD has been at its largest scale in history, because it was a fairly new concept, and the war featured so many graphic experiences. The Trenches in World War I were particularly traumatizing, because they contained tons of blood and dead bodies.

World War I was so shocking because the battles were so violent. People would fly by on planes or come by on tanks and shoot military remembers right in front of everyone. There was not always a set battle spot, and many bombings and shootings occurred in public sites. People constantly saw their companions being killed right in front of their eyes. Another aspect was the gassing, which caused millions of casualties. Survivors of gas attacks will always remember the people that died beside them, as will any survivors of the war.

Because there was so little awareness of PTSD, it became a huge problem because there was not really therapy to try to prevent, or help people who had PTSD from the war. Of course, since WWI, there has been a great improvement with knowledge about the trauma people experience when at war, which is certainly a reason that the conditions have improved since WWI.

My Character

My name is Hans Kaiser. I am a german soldier, who is constantly demanded in a new region. In the past two months, Germany has declared war on so many countries, we cannot even keep track of where we must have our troops, and when we must have them there. I only have recently become a member of the army. The military experience so far is nothing like what I've heard. I have yet to see any trauma, as I am constantly dealing with the chaos and disorganization through my country. Being a quiet man, I have not developed any relationships with other people serving in the military with me. Because I left my parents when I was only 14, the only true relationship that I am a part of is my friend Gerald Meyer, who is at home right now not serving anything. I know that he is not being effected by the war, and I doubt he even remembers that I am gone.

Wilfred Owen

The beginning of the documentary featured a brief discussion and a quotation from Wilfred Owen. The reason Wilfred Owen was mentioned in the documentary is because he was a famous poet during World War I. He wrote many poems about the war and war itself. He wrote his poetry from his experiences in battle. He served in the army for many years and had many significant experiences to write about. After an injury after his first time serving in the army, he met a man named Siegfield Sassoon, who ended up inspiring his poetry. Upon his recovery, he went back into the army and during his time serving, he wrote many noteworthy poems. He was a hero because of his performance in battle as well as his elegant writing that he left behind.

Nationalism is...

Nationalism is the effort to bond people in a nation with pride. This bond usually tends to be created with commonness among the people in a nation. For example, if people share a common history, ethnicity, or religion, they are likely to see firsthand the unity of their country. This leads to people being proud of their country because they see the special bond that their country has. About two weeks ago, we talked about the relationship between imperialism and nationalism. Through our game of RISK, we discovered the difficulty in being both imperialistic and nationalistic. There are of course benefits to being both imperialistic and nationalistic. However, nationalism is a force for positive change, more so than imperialism.

True nationalism is when the entire country is united and everyone lives for the same cause. Part of this has to do with everyone trying to accomplish the same goal from a government aspect. In the Ottoman empire and China, there was no true nationalism. Instead, there were many groups of people trying to create nationalism. This only destructs the country because there and up being groups that work against each other and set each other back. This is in fact what happened in China and the Ottoman empires. Japan on the other hand is a perfect example of a nation in which all members were working towards a common goal. Japan had the most success because of their nationalistic dominance. Because of nationalism, Japan surpassed many countries economically, growing faster than any other nation at the time.

Change of Japan Theory

My original thesis based on the documents we read in class is: "The Japanese exploit other countries' ideas while simultaneously shooting down the powers that have influenced them." Through the documents we read in class, our class concluded that Japan's success was significantly due to outside countries. The reading from Strayer definitely shows a new perspective. The fact that Japan had criticism of other countries' ideas and actions remained true, even after reading the text. However, Japan is not portrayed as reliant on other countries like it is in the documents. Instead, Japan was barely in contact with the outside world. Japan chose to be isolated from other countries and run off its own ideas.

The perspective of each source is clearly different. I think that they both must have elements of truth because in order for Japan to have so much success, it must have used its own ideas as well as the benefits from other countries ideas, actions, and mistakes. Japan became one of the most powerful countries in just a few years, so I think that it must have taken a lot to improve the country so much.