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.

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.

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.

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.

Friends and Foes

Rivalries during the Cold War mirror rivalries that we have seen all through history. During the Cold War, (which mainly consisted of a bunch of countries growling at each other) tensions were running high between not only the West and East, but between communist groups themselves. The tensions between the East and the West resembled tensions between almost all European countries just before WWI. No one wanted to be the one to provoke a fight, but both sides were bent on being stronger and more well-equiped than the other. They were also both tangled up with alliances and complicated political divisions. The difference here is that while the assassination in Serbia was the final straw which started WWI, the Cold War never escalated to that level. Instead, the countries managed to negotiate their way out of a possible nuclear war.

Saving the World, One Document at a Time

The United Nations Charter to protect civilians is a well meaning but worthless endeavor. The only thing the countries truly agree upon is the fact that none of them want their citizens to get hurt. They have no true methods by which this can be accomplised, and no punishment for countries who break the rules. They also contradict themselves with talk of forceful peace-keeping and only taking up weapons when it is in the common interest.

This is what I felt before reading through the United Nations website. After browsing a bit, however, I realized that the United Nations are even more delusional than I had originally thought. In one article they talk about how outer space is to be used for peaceful and scientific endeavors only. However, the same exact problems present in the original charter are present here. There are no consequences, no concrete examples of how the peace will be kept. The United Nations basically decide something is good for everyone, and grandly tell everyone about their decision. In another article, they at least became a bit more proactive. The UN got all of the countries in the Middle East to vote on whether to establish an official nuclear-weapons-free zone. But once again, their plan has flaws. They agree that everyone wants a nuclear free zone, yet they do not specify where this zone is to be or what will happen if someone breaks the agreement. Plus, will one area that's free of nuclear weapons really do a whole lot to destroy the threat of a nuclear war? I feel that the UN is a group of pompous people who feel that they are doing a great deal of good, but are actually accomplishing nothing. Maybe if they just thought through their plans a little more thoroughly?

Nice Try, Guys.

What I noticed most about this charter was how much the United Nations wanted peace, and their lack of means by which to achieve it. The phrase "international peace and security" was repeated about 20 times, along with some contradicting lines about peace being maintained through force. They stated that peace was something everyone wanted, but they forgot that this is the only motivation to keep countries from attacking each other. They stated that any breach of the peace must be controlled, but they failed to state how they would control it. The UN seeked to stop inhumane treatment of civilians during wartime, and stop any descrimination between these civilians. This charter is well-meaning, but essentially useless. It's true that civilians shouldn't be harmed during war and that universal peace is in the interest of everybody. However, since when has a peace of paper stopped a country from starting a war? The Treaty of Versailles sure didn't work. When there are no consequences for broken rules, there is no reason for a country to follow the rules in the first place.

Geography. Monuments. Important Stuff.

Because European countries are situated so closely together, it made the annihilation of all Jews a comparatively simple process. All of the countries could be easily connected by railroads, as shown in the map WWII And The Holocaust. This made transportation and invasion very easy. The Germans were inclined to invade whichever countries were closest to them, because they were easy to get to. This meant that countries occupied by Germany and the Soviet Union slowly expanded out like a growing amoebea, and didn't jump around like they might have if they had been island hopping or using boats to reach their next target. Instead of carefully choosing the weakest place to strike, the Germans simply moved forward.

These maps memorialize the Holocaust by showing an obvious bias towards the Jews and other minorities who suffered and lost their lives during this mass genocide. Never once do the maps say something along the lines of, "Well, the Germans really did mean well." The museum assumes that all the visitors want to honor the memory of the victims by silently observing the cruelty of the Nazis and empathizing with their victims. My original reaction is that a website cannot be a monument, because it is not a physical entity. However, I suppose that if its sole purpose is to commemmorate a certain event or person, then it falls under our definition and is indeed a monument. A museum can be a monument, but only if it is a biased museum like the Holocausst Museum. A Museum showing soley concrete data about a certain event with absolutely no opinion is simply informative. A memorial must be honoring not only a certain event, but what that event means to the people.

Questions on Monument

Afrikaans Language Monument: commemorates the 50th anniversary of the adoption of Afrikaans as an official language of South Africa, as opposed to Danish. It stands on a hill overlooking the city of Paarl in the Western Cape Province of South Africa.

Who designed/comissioned it? Was its construction controversial? What does the average South African think about the monument? What did tensions between the Duch and South Africans have to do with this monument? How much Afrikaans is spoken there today as opposed to other languages? How did the monument's construction affect the immediate community? Do people in other countries have opinions on this monument? What do the different aesthetic aspects symbolize to the South African people? Is this was they were originally intended to symbolize?

The Woodside Store: placed in Woodside, California, and is a relic to the days of California's logging communities.

What purposes has this store served? When was it built? Who used it? What does it represent to Woodsiders? How many people go there a day? A week? A year? What does the store mean to young people as opposed to people who have grown up in the town? Is the store's purpose commonly known? Why did the town stop being a logging town? When did the store start being treated as a monument and not as a store?

Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

As time goes on, people have become more and more doubtful about whether dropping the atomic bomb was an ethical decision. Americans today are pretty divided about if it was the right thing to do or not, although at the time, the country felt almost unanimously that it was necessary. Although the bomb successfully ended the war in the Pacific and it doubtlessly saved thousands of American lives, it affected Japan in horrific and brutal ways. And because our more recent generation did not experience WWII, we can look at the atomic bomb with a critical eye unclouded by fear. I believe that PBS published this video on the atomic bomb in 1995 because of the doubts and guilt filling the Americans of today. The video showed both sides of the argument, displaying fearful Japanese schoolchildren and determined US soldiers side by side. They probably wanted to honor the 50th anniversary of the bomb by informing people of both sides of the story, along with showing what a horrific tragedy the bomb truly was.

Exciting Stuff!

The part of World War 2 that I decided to research was some basic facts and chronology. Although usually not the most exciting topic, I felt that I had heard a great many stories (from my grandpa especially) about the horros of combat during World War 2, and wanted to gain a solid base of information on which to build these stories. I was very interested to see how the war had originally "started" - the beginning is obviously objective. Germany staged a fake attack on a Polish radio station on September 1, 1939. The objective of this odd action was that when Poland reciprocated, they could call it an "unprovoked attack." I was shocked at how low Germany was willing to stoop in order to attack Poland without appearing ridiculously aggressive. I also saw a strong parallel here with the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi party were infamous for inventing reasons to persecute or harm people, and this is no exception. When Germany decided that you were in their way, no amount of logic would talk them out of it. They would take you to prison or kill you on the spot, and if they couldn't find a good reason to do it they would make one up.

Another date I felt was important was September 3, 1939. Britain and France declared war on Germany because of an alliance they both had with Poland. Sound familiar? This is exactly how World War 1 started, with a bunch of tricky alliances and Germany jumping the gun just a bit. The one thing I would like to know is this: Did Germany attack Poland because it actually wanted Poland, or did Germany just want to start a huge war without appearing to be on the offensive? I wouldn't put anything past Germany at this point.

The Munich Conference Take 2

The Munich Conference was a successful and useful meeting between four countries. By allowing Germany to take Sudetenland, France, Britain and Italy were showing Germany that they still had control over its actions. The original Treaty of Versailles was terrifically unfair, and allowing Germany this small act of redemption will help to improve relations between all the countries. Sudetenland is so small that it will not increase Germany's power anyway, and will not make Germany any more of  threat. France, Britain and Italy, by holding this conference, showed that they are willing to once again view Germany as a near-equal. It is as if Germany was a naughty child who has finally been allowed to come out of its time out. Germany has seen the power that the rest of Europe can hold over it, and this offering of peace will persuade Germany not to act out of line again. Sudetenland was merely a pacifier for the baby of Germany, and will undoubtedly stop it from pushing its luck any further. 

Now that relations between these countries have been improved, all of Europe should look forward to an era of peace and companionship. Germany has been shown its place, and now respect is once again being attributed to the once-powerful country. Soon, all the European superpowers will once again become friendly rivals and the world will live in a happy state of balance. 

Peace, and the Beginning of the End

The speech given by Dorothy Thompson on October 1, 1938, is a little ironic. She, among millions of people, sees clearly what Germany's intentions are and how dangerous giving in to them is. She says that Germany is seeking to accomplish the "domination of Europe," which is surprisingly close to the truth. The Munich Conference was held in order to reassure Britan, France, and Italy. Although they all came away feeling better, Germany ended up completely on the top.
Once Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles, it all went downhill for the other countries. None of them even lifted a finger to stop Hitler as he broke agreement after agreement. When he finally went one step too far with Sudetenland, they decided that they had to do something. But instead of keeping him in check like they had hoped, they gave him exactly what he wanted: more territory, and the power to control the people within it. He even managed to make the people who gave him what he wanted feel good about giving it to him. Hitler, in a few aggressive moves, had all the superpowers of Europe completely under his thumb.

Everything I Know About WWII!

-The Germans, Japanese and Italians were the bad guys. We were the good guys, along with the British and the Soviet Union
-We got involved in the war after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941
-The Germans started the war with uneeded aggression to their neighboring countries
-Many new forms of technology were seen during this time, including U-boats, fighter jets, and boats that launched missiles
-The war lasted roughly from the late 1930's to the early 40's
-During the war, the Holocaust took place which was the mass genocide of over 6 million Jews
-The Germans developed a new aircraft, but not fast enough to turn the tides for the airforce
-The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the war

Animal Farm Parallels

Although I'm not completely certain about all of the symbolism in Animal Farm, it is glaringly apparent that there are very specific allegories throughout the book. Old Major is very obviously a mix between Karl Marx and Lenin. This is because he was the "founder" of Animal Farm in the same way that Karl Marx started the communist movement. He also relates to Lenin because he was a leader who died early into the revolution that he started. Another analogy that stands out to me is the dogs. They are all completely loyal to Napoleon and are used to keep everyone under submission, just like the Stalin's Cheka, or secret police force. Napoleon is also representative of Stalin. He uses his dogs, just like the Cheka, to keep any one person from getting too powerful. He also preforms "purges," such as when he got rid of Snowball. Snowball represents Trotsky in many ways. He is very persuasive and can convince the animals of almost anything, just like the way Trotsky was a master of propoganda. He is also a rival for Napoleon, and is removed from power after Stalin spreads horrible rumors about him and runs him off the farm. Squealer, another very convincing character, probably represents the head of propoganda for Stalin after he disposed of Trotsky. He does much of Napoleon's dirty work, by talking to the masses and convincing them that everything Napoleon does is right.

Orwell wrote this book to express his views on communism and the Soviet Union without stepping on any toes. By turning all the political leaders into animals and simplifying the entire revolution to events taking place on a farm, he can make his point in a subdued and unobtrusive way. His book is also much easier to read than a heavy textbook on communism might be, so he is also making the information and general ideas accessible to a wider range of people.

Fascism and Communism

Fascism and communism may have some similar qualities, but they have very different philosophies. A communist government strives to do what is best for individual people, while a fascist government wants the county itself to prosper.

Communists value people who work together well, and know how to live simply and be happy. They believe that this kind of person will help everyone to prosper, and will not see other businesspeople as competition, but as friends. Although fascists also want a strong, united population, they see people as unequal and they want people to work together only to advance the power of the entire country. A fascist politician descriminates against the minorities to increase the power and nationalism of the elite majority. They focus on differences among people instead of similarities, such as in communism.

French Revolution to Communism?

Although I can see similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, I feel that Strayer emphasizes his point too strongly. It's true that both revolutions were started by lower class citizens demanding more rights. However, while the French Revolution was focused mainly on a change in the government and in the representation of the third estate, the Russian Revolution was more than just political. The Russian Revolution demanded an entire social upheaval. Russian citizens seized the land of wealthy lords and redistributed it amongst themselves, something the chaotic French could never have managed. They pushed for lower class control over factories, and they saw enemies everywhere. The communist party in Russia quickly had an identified list of enemies in and outside of Russia, while the French revolutionaries saw only the political leaders in France who they thought needed to be removed. So although the Russian Revolution may have taken some inspiration from the French, they did not model their revolution after France's.

Themes of the Cabaret

Berlin: The city was portrayed mostly as dirty, dark, and in constant shadow. Mutilated propaganda hung on every building, and the clear anti-communist feeling of the public were quite clear. These details of the movie conveyed the feeling of Berlin at the very beginnings of World War II - confining, depressing, and brutal if you don't fit in. The violently distroyed posters created a real fear of being singled out, because being a minority during this time could easily result in your death.

Nazis: The Nazis in this movie turned up in more and more places as the movie went on. Our first viewing of a Nazi is a young man asking for donations in the Cabaret. As the movie progresses, we see their gang mentality, influence on the radio and most aspects of life, brutal killings of communists, and their amazing ability to spread nationalism. The Nazis in this movie are portrayed as a fast-growing group of extreme nationalists who are also quickly gaining support and power.

Cabaret: The Cabaret itself is simply a skewed reflection of the real world at the time. Everything going on in the cabaret relates somehow to what's going on outside of it, but in a meaningless, slap-happy way. The cabaret represents a haven where people can go to "forget their troubles," but really their problems are being shown to them and they are refusing to see.

Op-Ed: Fascism and the Taliban

When one imagines the Taliban, they might see flashing images of shootings, war, underprivileged women, and chaos in the Middle East. The Taliban love power, and are driven by an innate need to control as much territory as possible. They also accept war as a necessary part of life, and are inclined to violence. Because of these characteristics, they are often seen by outsiders as forceful, expansionist xenophobes. But are they fascist?

Fascism is a type of government focused on obtaining absolute power through dictatorship, war, and a united population. And although the Taliban share many characteristics with fascist governments, they are missing some vital parts. For example, one of the main ways fascist governments maintain power is by having a single, centralized government which is also in complete control of the country’s economy. The Taliban, however, are more unorganized and do not successfully control the entire economy of the countries they inhabit. Fascist leaders also tend to show a paternalistic tenderness towards their population. Although they are horrifically violent, and atrocities such as public punishments and executions are common, they still feel a need to take care of the people they control. The Taliban feel no such responsibility. The citizens of a Taliban-controlled state are expected to submit entirely and help the Taliban achieve their goals, not wonder what their leaders can do for their country. Fascism countries work towards the good of the country, the Taliban work towards the good of the Taliban.

One last difference between these two is that the Taliban control other states through intimidation, while fascist rulers bribe countries with images of strength and glory. Fascist subjects are usually there voluntarily, because the offers of the fascist rulers are too good to pass up. The Taliban, on the other hand, expand and conquer through force alone, spreading terror in their wake to ease their accent to power. During the fascist rule of Germany, the average German citizen was quite content with the direction their country seemed to be traveling. The government’s control over the economy and their drive to make the country “better” was a huge morale booster for many. They created more jobs and glorified German culture, both of which were exactly what Germany needed to recover from the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. If the fascist regime hadn’t started persecuting minorities, the government might have successfully helped to return Germany to power.

Although the Taliban share many qualities with fascists, they have too many fundamental differences to truly be called fascist. Perhaps the Taliban are using fascist ideals as inspiration, or maybe they are aspiring to someday create a truly fascist nation. But for the moment, Taliban and Fascists are not interchangeable words.

Hitler Youth

My picture is not true propoganda, but I believe that it serves the same purpose as many propoganda posters. This image displays two lines of young men, probably around our age. They are all holding torches and wearing matching uniforms as they stand in front of a large Nazi flag. Because of the lighting and the torches, all of their faces are partially hidden, and this creates an ominous mood in the picture. The boys, although they are still young, look frightening and formidable, as if they could hurt or kill as a mob without a second thought. This picture is definitely meant to promote Germany's Hitler Youth program, which was mandatory for even primary school students. This program was created to raise Germany's children with fascist ideals and force them to serve in the army. The image perfectly conveys this odd sense of power belonging to those who shouldn't have it: the children. Because of the straight lines they are standing in and the matching clothes and torches, they look more like one united force than individuals. This picture would probably have intimidating anyone fighting against Germany at the time, because seeing mere children armed and ready for battle is just about as unnerving as it can get.