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.

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.

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.

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.

It's not a hot war without guns.

The cold was was very different from other wars we've seen in history for one simple reason: in other wars, you try to take down the enemy's people. In the cold war, countries tried to build up their own people. While it may seem like it amounts to the same thing, it really is quite different because there was not an emphasis on who had more powerful weapons or who had a stronger military. It was who could attract more people to their side and way of government. That being said, strength in numbers is the idea behind every war, the cold war just took a different approach.

Personally I think it was smart that the USSR and the US really took some time to think about what would happen if they started firing weapons. They knew that one gunshot would lead to a bomb which would lead to a nuclear bomb. And after two world wars in one generation, starting a nuclear war would just be pretty stupid.

Unfortunately, Sir, it's a bit more complicated.

False promises have never done anybody any good. They build hope higher and higher until - bam. It all comes crashing down. When the UN uses phrases such as "WE CAN end poverty" or saying that "Falling short [of their Millennium Development Goals] would be an unacceptable failure." (The United Nation's MDGs) they are using false hope as a way to get people on their side. Ending poverty is a goal that is far too large for one organization, even as big as the UN, to take on. To say that they would be a failure to not achieve their goals automatically makes people think they will, without a doubt, achieve their goals. Upon looking more closely, an educated person knows the UN cannot, by any means, end poverty. Really what they are doing in this document is calling themselves a failure. Other documents, such as one by the General Assembly emphasizing anti-poverty, are no less hopeful, and no less unrealistic. When discussing how necessary it was to fund this cause, a representative said, "If you do not fund the Global Fund, [the impoverished children] die. If you fund the Global Fund, they survive. There is nothing complicated about this.” Unfortunately, Sir, it's a bit more complicated than that. How are you planning on dividing this fund equally among every child in the entire world who is dying of hunger? Will this fund be enough to cover food, extensive medical care, and everything else a child needs who has been living in poverty their entire life? The more people you give money to, the less money each person gets. There is nothing complicated about that.

In addition, it is unacceptable that the UN declares all humans equal rights , while not enforcing these rights. Of the 30 articles written, almost all of them mentioned equal rights to every race, gender, religious affiliation, political opinion, etc. However, most people know that all over the world, there are people being treated unequally for all of these reasons. My question is, if the UN is not going to follow up on a simple declaration of rights, how are they planning on maintaining what they emphasized so highly in the Charter: world peace?

Abracadabra.. hocus pocus.. WORLD PEACE!

1. When I first started annotating the paper, I highlighted words like "maintaining peace" and "equal rights" because those seemed like key ideas that would be important in the document and the tone that it set. Six pages later, peace and equality were still main ideas. In fact, they were the only ideas. The document continued to discuss these ideas, re-phrasing them in many different ways to get the point across. This is a pretty short paragraph summarizing what the document said, but in truth, it really didn't say that much.

2. The goal of the UN was made very apparent: prevent total war and chaos as they'd seen destroy their countries in both World Wars. In addition, and perhaps to help this cause, intolerance was to stop, and everybody was to be accepting of each other. It seemed to me that the goals of the UN were just a direct response to what happened in the world wars. They didn't really take anything else into account. At the beginning it even says, "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind," referring to both world wars. The tolerance idea would fix the problem of genocides and the peace idea would fix wars. Simple as that.

3. Maybe it seemed simple to the UN at the time, but they forgot to address how exactly they were going to reach these goals. I don't know what was going through these leaders' heads when they wrote this, but nobody can just say some magic words, rub their hands together and bring world peace. This was the main problem I saw. I had no idea how it would be possible to achieve the goals they set, and after reading through all of it, this question was never answered.

Holocaust Museum Memorial Maps

The most important geography during the Holocaust was how Germany was laid out and where the Nazis strategically placed their concentration camps to ensure the most harm to the minorities. Most ghettos and concentration camps were located in the east, where they "isolated and persecuted the Jewish population." The fact that many concentration camps were located in Poland, away from central Germany, is significant because it is a way for the Germans to torture the Jews in these camps without drawing much attention to themselves. Had the camps been in the middle of a big city, Germans who were against Nazism would see the horrors being done, and most likely protest or cause another sort of trouble. Germans knew Jews were being tortured, but by having the concentration camps so far away, it was a very vague and distant idea, and the German citizens would not have believed anything could be done. In addition, the Germans had also smartly placed a larger concentration camp in the middle of German. When the German territory started to shrink when the Soviet Union and the Allied powers started to win the war, "transports from evacuated camps arrived continuously at Dachau," the central camp. The fact that Nazis put so much thought in their placement of the camps showed just how intent they were on harming the Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and other minorities.

I thought it was very clear that the maps were from a Holocaust memorial site. A lot of what the videos said were horrific statistics ("two in every three Jews were killed") that showed just how terrible the Holocaust was. Not to mention the pictures shown of Jews being forced to work, dead bodies laying in a pile, and masses and masses of starving people. I think the website already assumed people knew about the Holocaust and knew it was bad, but wanted to show pictures and statistics to emphasize just how bad it really was. I think this is really common in what memorials do. The main goal of a memorial is to make people feel emotion for what is being commemorated. Some monuments are for specific people, and show all the great things this person has done, and therefore what a loss it is that they are dead. In this case, the USHMM does not memorialize one person, but rather the millions and millions of people who died. They emphasize the number of people dead so that visitors really the losses caused by the Holocaust.

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?

Atomic bombs.... for the win?

As Bryant Gumbel from NBC News said, "Americans in 1995 are divided on the issue, but back in 1945 they were unified in their desire to win the war at any price." I think this is exactly why this piece was aired when it was. Back in 1945, the war had been going on for six years, and the people would do anything to put an end to it. Everyone in America had been affected by the war and by the ways Japan had hurt their country, so airing a piece that I think is aiming towards sympathy for the Japanese probably wouldn't have gone down so well. Frankly, had the Americans even known about the violence the war had ended with, I don't think it would have changed much about how victorious they felt about winning. I think most people would just say "War is war, and you do what have to do to win it." However, 50 years later, people who did not experience the war can have un-biased opinions about how far we take our acts of violence and aggression.

Why did the war start anyway?

I was particularly interesting in why WWII started, and only a few decades after the first World War. It seemed weird to me that after so much destruction, the countries of Europe, and followed by other countries in the world, would want even more? I discovered in my research that France, Britain and the Soviet Union actually provoked war primarily in their attempts to maintain peace with Hitler, and therefore with Germany.

Britain and France wanted peace, and Stalin sensed Germany was out of control and tried to unite all the anti-fascist countries. He also wanted peace, and was convinced that Hitler would not start a war against the rest of Europe if they were strongly united. However, while Britain and France were anti-fascist, they were not fans of the USSR's communist regime either. They didn't want to unite with Stalin so they desperately tried to keep the peace with Germany so they wouldn't need an anti-fascist alliance. This is what pushed Britain and France to easily agree to the Munich Agreement, in which Hitler promised peace so as long as he got to take over Sudetenland. This move lost Britain the support of the Czech Army, but they were convinced it has prevented war and did not want to go to war with Germany over the seemingly small matter of Sudetenland. However, Hitler, being the bad guy he was, went against his word and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, breaking the Munich Agreement.

Before Hitler broke the agreement however, Stalin was becoming suspicious of Britain's deals with Germany. The Munich Conference was something Britain would normally support, unless, Stalin thought, they were trying to force Germany onto the Eastern front instead of the Western front. By now, Stalin was convinced war with Germany was inevitably. However, this didn't mean Germany had to be fighting Russia. He figured Britain was probably thinking the same thing, and was trying to push Hitler to declare was on the USSR. Stalin tried to buy time to build up his army by signing a peace treaty with Germany. The countries had always argued over Poland, and the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed on August 28, 1939, agreeing to share Polish territory. This certainly took the world by surprise. Fascists and communists had always been enemies. However, barely 4 days later Germany invaded Poland (after trying to convince the world that Poland had invaded them first, which of course was not the case) This was the last straw. War was declared on Germany on September 3rd, 1939.

With the Munich conference and the Nazi-Soviet pact, it is clear that Russia, Britain and France were desperately trying to maintain peace with Germany. However, with Hitler so out of control, the treaties were broken, leaving the Western and Eastern fronts with absolutely nothing gained from these treaties and plenty lost. This was what eventually started another World War.

Germany Being Generous

While Thompson argues that “compared with [the Munich agreement] the Treaty of Versailles is a great humane document and a normal and reasonable treaty,” she is not seeing this from Germany’s side. The Treaty of Versailles blamed an entire world war on Germany. It made them pay off millions and millions of dollars, and they were not allowed an air force, a military, or any sort of defense. So really, in comparison to the Treaty of Versailles, the Munich agreement is “a great humane document” to use Ms. Thompson’s phrasing. Because Germany was treated so unfairly after World War One, it only makes sense that they would want this treaty to prevent another war or another opportunity for them to be blamed.
France and Britain completely controlled Germany after WWI, using the Treaty of Versailles, without the consent of Germany itself. Sound familiar? Maybe something “in which the defendant was not even allowed to present a brief or be heard.”? Dorothy Thompson could turn her argument around and apply it exactly to the Treaty of Versailles, which, as we all know, what against Germany.
Not only this, but by agreeing to this treaty at the Munich conference, war will be prevented. That is precisely what the countries agreed upon. Why is Thompson arguing against peace? Simply by evacuating the small territory of Czechoslovakia, peace will be prevalent among countries who have never been peaceful before. It’s quite generous of Germany to agree to peace with Britain and France, especially after being blamed for an entire war, which obviously wasn’t the case at all.
Really, Germany is not the enemy here. Britain and France are taking way more than they deserve from Germany. Millions of dollars, a military, a war guilt clause, and an entire countries’ sense of nationalism? Who’s really being unfair here?

Not Peace

I agree with Dorothy Thompson’s broadcast, including her definition of peace. When she says that “Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is a positive condition – the rule of law,” I think she is completely right. There are many examples of when there is not peace, but also no war. In any genocide, this is true. During the Holocaust, a war was not immediately declared, however Jews were still being slaughtered. This is not peace, and therefore peace is not simply the absence of war. I also agree with Thompson when she says that peace is the rule of law. To have something that is not peace, someone has to break the rules. Violence is not peace, and violence, in 99% of all cases, is against the law. Therefore, when Hitler took away the usual democratic laws and justice in creating the treaty, when “Czechoslovakia was disposed of by four men who in four hours made a judgment of the case in which the defendant was not even allowed to present a brief or be heard,” he made it okay for someone to do something that wasn’t peace. Creating this treaty is the same as just barging into the territory and threatening all the citizens that weren’t German with guns and bombs. There was not justice in making the treaty, as “This document provides no protection whatsoever for their lives, their properties or their existences,” so it amounts to the same thing as a violent evacuation. Hitler contradicts himself when he wrote the treaty. If he claimed to have made peace, but did not use justice or laws to do so, he is simply making not peace. Looking past what we already know about what Hitler did, we can see clearly that the treaty’s intent was not to create peace, but actually the start of a coup, as Thompson states at the beginning of her broadcast. The definition of peace doesn’t change from person to person, or from time period to time period. Hitler needs to get his definition straightened out.

What I Know About WW2

Mostly I've just gotten all my knowledge from books and movies (Number The Stars, the Book Thief, Maus I and II, the Sunflower, Anne Frank, the Sound of Music and Paperclips) but here's what I know:

England was against Germany. In Germany, Hitler persecuted against Jews and forced them to work in concentration camps. He killed 6 million people. (?)

Hitler liked Aryan people, which means people with blonde hair, blue eyes, and who were not Jewish, homosexual, a gypsies, etc. Hitler persecuted against these people and he recognized them if they did not have blonde hair, blue eyes. (but I also thought that Hitler wasn't actually Aryan himself...?)

The U.S. was not part of the war until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Then we joined the war, allied with England. Sweden and Switzerland remained neutral the entire war, and they were refuges the Jews could escape to.

Hitler did many horrible things to the Jews, a lot of which occurred in WW1, such as poisonous gas, however he targeted Jews and this is what made it so horrible. People hid Jews in their basements or their attics to protect them.

When the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, we ended the war. The damage from that bomb was long-lived and probably still prevalent today.

Then everyone decided to have lots of babies to make up for the population that was killed in WW2 :)

What started WW2?

How were the allies different in WW2 than in WW1 (if they were at all different)?

Why did Japan decide to join the war?

What other countries were part of the war that we don't hear about as much in books and movies/what affect did the war have on other parts of the world?

Animalism... communism?

I definitely think that Animal Farm is an allegory to communism, mainly because of the clear representations of different people in Russian communism, and also because of the complete political control that is under the pretense of "All animals created equal." We said in class that Major was Marx, and that Napoleon was Stalin. I think these are very fitting comparisons. Major was the one to initiate it all, while Napoleon is very violent and wants to be in control of everything. He also steps up to be the new leader, like Stalin did. I also think that Animal Farm relates to communism because of the absolute control the leaders, Napoleon and Snowball, each have. Snowball and Napoleon come up with the seven commandments, and make every animal memorize them. If the animals cannot learn to read everything, they must be able to read the seven commandments, or at least know them. Also, Snowball and Napoleon have convinced everyone that the apples and milk are only for the pigs, because pigs need nourishment for their minds since they are the smartest. The "government" or leaders own everything, just like in Russian communism. Although the seventh commandment clearly states "All animals are equal", we can see that this is not at all the case, which is why Animal Farm is an allegory to Russian Communism.

Comun/Fasc ism

The Great War did nothing to benefit Russia, Italy and Germany. It left them struggling economically, their governments losing control, and their citizens unhappy. Every citizen's sense of nationalism was going down the drain. Pretty soon, people would do anything to get back on their feet and feel successful again. While both communism and fascism wanted to achieve the citizens support and bring back their country's nationalism, communism focused on giving each individual citizen, specifically the lower-class, more political and economic rights, while fascism focused on bringing the country as a whole back to greatest.

Both communism and fascism had the goal of gaining more power and nationalism for their country, however they had different methods of achieving it. In communist Russia, the leaders believed that in order to achieve nationalism, they must make all the citizens equal so they will create a country with everyone part of one political status, one social class, and one larger majority. The fascists liked majority too, because it meant the whole country agreed with each other. This was an easy way to gain nationalism. However, instead of trying to create a majority by forcing equality on their citizens, they simply ruled out the minorities. Both wanted their country to be united again after years of WWI tearing it apart, but communism and fascism used different methods to do this.

French Rev. vs. Russian Rev.

Although both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution shared some of the same characteristics, it is not true to say that the Russians modeled their revolution after the French. Firstly, the reasons for the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution were very different. The French Revolution happened after years of inequality and a monopolizing government. This build-up is what caused the Third Estate to rebel. On the other hand, the Russians revolted mainly because of the Great War. When it came to economics, the war had left the peasants with little more than nothing. The Third Estate was mostly revolting for more of a say in government, while the Russians mainly revolted for more economic equality and better treatment of workers.

Also, immediately following the French Revolution, Napoleon rose to power and conquered all. He was from the third estate, so it's true that the French Revolution sort of worked. However, this isn't what the Russians wanted. They would hate to have their revolution end up in one person with a lot of power, because this is exactly what communism isn't.

It is true that both revolutions were a lower class rebelling against those more powerful than them. However, isn't this true with all revolutions? When looking at the more specific details of each revolution, we can see that they are different in what their citizens fought for, and the turn-out of their rebellion.

Cabaret

The Atmosphere of Berlin, 1931: What Does it Look Like?

In 1931 Berlin, the city was not well-off economically and, while both the Nazis and the citizens were against communism, the city was torn between the youth supporting the Nazis and the rest of the city opposing them.

Who and Where are the Nazis?

While the Nazis in Berlin of 1931 were not tolerated in the cabaret and other public places, they remained violent and aggressive, and were constantly attacking and killing innocent citizens.

What is the Point of the Cabaret?

The cabarets of 1931 Berlin gave the citizens a place to escape the horrors of the outside world, however, they mirrored it's violence in their performances without the audience's immediate knowledge.

Lunchtime Speaker: Tim James

During lunch today, Tim James talked about his experiences traveling around west Africa. He talked a lot about the problem of transportation, and how the major cities are SO crowded, but there are few highways or bridges. He also talked about the effects of colonialism by the French and British in these places. This relates to what we were learning, of course, because we studied colonialism, but it was also very interesting to see the results of colonialism after several centuries have passed. This is something we didn't really look into when we studied it.

For example, the language in Senegal (colonized by France) remained French, even when surrounding places spoke English or another African dialect. I thought it was interesting that places so close to Senegal spoke an entirely different language like English or another African dialect. It was also strange how, because of colonialism, when traveling to and from Senegal by plane, you have to first fly through Paris. I don't really know why this is the case, and Tim James didn't say, but it definitely gives France more control over the people entering and leaving their colony, which is what anyone would want.

I also found it interesting, and inspiring, that although the conditions in west Africa are so harsh, the people who live there still laugh, have fun and are seemingly happy. At least this is the impression I got from the presentation. Many of us would complain about having to cram 20 people in the back of a van, but for the people that live there, this is their way of life, and they aren't complaining.

Op-ed: Is The Taliban a Fascist Regime?

Outrage and shock can sometimes interfere with our ability to get to the bottom of the reason for merciless killing. Some people see violence as violence, and fail to look any closer. In truth, the reason for any discrimination or massacre could differ greatly, while the results are still this same. This is the case with the Taliban versus a Fascist regime. While the Taliban possesses a few of the same characteristics, they are not a Fascist regime because they do not have an organized military, they discriminate among their own race, and they use fear to get people on their side.

Organized military does not exist with the Taliban. They are guerilla armies that kill and kill and kill. Their main focus is killing, not war. Fascists focus on war, and their army is the most important thing. One of the main points that Benito Mussolini makes when he describes Fascism is that “War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.” (handout) With the Taliban, there are bombs and gunshots and death, but not two sides fighting on a battlefield. How is a member of the Taliban supposed to put on the “stamp of nobility” if there is no war to prove himself with? Because of this, it is clear the Taliban cannot be Fascists.

Along with not having organized warfare, the Taliban has no issue with minorities, but more an issue with the women of their own race. This is not the case with Fascism. Fascism sought to unify their own race and destroy all the racial minorities. The Taliban is tearing apart their own race. They forbid women from going to school and being independent, and they kill anyone who gets in their way, even if all these people are Muslim. They don’t care about destroying their race, while Fascists care only about unifying their race.

Lastly, the Taliban uses fear and public killing to get people on their side, while Fascists use bribes and promises of greatness. These methods could not be more different. This relates back to the fact that the Taliban has no problem killing their own race. If there are people that challenge them, these people die a painful, public death, even if they are Muslim. Because Fascists would never kill their own race, they had to use other methods to get people on their side. Erna Kranz, a German teenager in the 1940s, said that Fascism during Nazi Germany was “A glimmer of hope… not just for the unemployed but more everyone because we all knew we were downtrodden.” (Strayer) Fascists bribe with hope, and the Taliban, quite simply, does not promise anything.