Everyone is Equal

A woman in the 1800’s was seen as someone who was generally in the home and took care of the children and provided comfort for the men when they came back from work. There were four features of an ideal woman. The first feature was piety. Piety was religious devotion. Women were thought as new Eve’s who worked with God to end the sin in the world through being pure. Religion was seen as a way for a woman to treat her restless mind and could be done so in the home. A woman that was not religious was seen as on of the most revolting things a woman could possess. The second feature of being an ideal woman was purity. Which is being clean of sins and not being an overly sexual being. If a woman was not pure then she wasn’t even a woman. She was a lower form, a fallen woman, not deserving of respect from other women. A woman needed to protect her virginity. She has to remain pure and not give her “treasure” to the wrong person.

Women could also use their sexuality as somewhat of a power. If they wanted a man to do something they could withhold or grant sex. The third characteristic of being an ideal woman was submissiveness. This was seen as the most feminine of virtues. Men could be religious and pure but never submissive. They were seen as the doers while women were seen as bystanders. Someone who were passive and would stand by to let the men do the work. Even the clothing women wore made them submissive and passive. They wore extremely tight corsets that used whalebones or metal to constrict their body to give them an hourglass figure. They wore large dresses’ and cages that were extremely heavy and limited mobility. The fourth characteristic is domesticity. This meant that women’s place was in the home. Women needed to remain in the home and stay busy. They’re job was to keep the house looking nice and make it feel uplifting and cheerful for the husband when he came home form a rough day at work. The home was seen as the private sphere. It was where the women worked. It was peaceful and out of the public view. The men however worked in the public sphere. This was a busy, violent world of commerce and economy. This was obviously in the public view. The Cult of Domesticity was the belief that women should stay home while the men worked. This occurred as worked stopped being done in the household. Women were expected to stay inside and not be seen by the public. The home was now seen as an isolation form the community. Women were now seen as an object that was beautiful but with no true purpose.

The Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention took place in New York, and it was where women from all over the United States came to discuss the rights of women. Here many reforms were proposed that would make women’s lives better. They tried to give women more of a voice and give them more rights. Some things they were trying to fight for were the right to divorce their husbands. Speak in public was seen as improper for a women to do. The most controversial subject that women fought for was the right to vote, also known as suffrage.  At the convention there was both men and women fighting for women’s rights. The idea of letting women vote was very controversial among the men and women at the convention. The women thought that it would disrupt their role. They felt that it would disrupt the family and the public spheres. They thought that they were not ready and that many people would disagree with allowing women to vote. They didn’t see it as one of the main priorities. At the convention the people there wrote the Declaration of Sentiments. It was based on the Declaration of Rights but instead of saying all men are created equal, it said all men and women are created equal. It also said the things the women were not allowed to do and talked about the resolutions. It said what a woman could do after these laws were passed.

Although the convention greatly helped the women gain more rights it did not help others who were not allowed to do certain things. In class I was assigned the group enslaved African American women. During this time of fighting for women’s rights the African American’s were also fighting for their rights. Not only African Americans but also all other races of women did not get the same rights that a rich white woman got. Bottom-line is that if you weren’t a middle to upper class white female you didn’t have the same amount of rights. That includes Cherokee, African Americans, Latin Americans and even lower class white women. My group discovered some African American women, even though they wanted to end slavery, sided more with fighting for women’s rights than ending slavery. In class as well as being assigned a specific group of women we were also asked to come up with resolutions. For example for the African American woman group we resolved that slavery should be against the law. As well that it is against the law for a man to own a man or woman, breeding to produce more slaves was illegal and that speaking in public and voicing ones own opinions is allowed for woman. As a class we came up with resolutions with all the groups ideas being contributed. We came up with that all people regardless of their skin color, gender, and social status are recognized as citizens and have the same amount of rights. That would be if everyone had the same rights as a rich white male landowner.  Ending slavery was also a big one because that affected a larger group than just women. Also the right to participate in all institutions, freedom of speech, and owning property. Lastly we resolved to end abuse of women and improve the working conditions.

Our class’s revolutions and the actual revolutions made at Seneca Falls were pretty close. They stated that women and men are equal which we also somewhat said. But we said all people no matter the gender or race and that was not included in this resolution made by the woman. That was the main one that both resolutions agreed. The one that we didn’t agree upon is the ending of slavery. That was not included in the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. Although women were trying to abolish slavery that was not as big as gaining more rights for women themselves.

Personally I think that the resolution that all people are equal no matter the race, gender, or social status is the most important. If we fixed that I feel that all the other issues would be fixed by themselves. Also everyone deserves to be equal. There was never a ruler of all beings that said the white people deserve to treat the non-white people badly. And there was never someone who had the power to say women are not as good as men. On the outside people may look different but on the inside we are all the same. We all have the potential to do something great with our lives and succeed and we should not be pushed down or stopped based on how we look.

United States Policy with Afghanistan

The article I found was from the New York Times titled 1,000 Extra U.S. Soldiers Will Remain in Afghanistan by Azam Ahmed. The article is about the United States keeping 1000 extra troops in Afghanistan this year. This was in response to slow force commitment by the NATO allies in Afghanistan. The former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that keeping more troops there was not in response to resent Taliban violence. The reason that it also may have happened is to maintain the Kandahar Airfield, which is the United States commanding base in Afghanistan. Also there was a agreement to send more than the scheduled 9,800 troops. This was the Afghanistan president, Ashraf Ghani’s, attempt at making the relation between America and Afghanistan better. Usually countries don’t send in that many troops because Afghanistan usually takes a long time to sign a security agreement. The former president refused the agreement and the election for the new president took a long time so it took a while for the security agreement to be signed. The American troops will only be there temporarily and that in 2015 hopefully there will only be 5,500 troops. The US is hoping we will be able to pull our troops out. Chuck Hagel said that it would take a while for all the troops to be taken out. He talks about Afghanistan’s troops saying, “They’re not completely there yet, but they’ve come a long way,” he said. “That’s to the credit certainly of the United States.” The Afghanistan president is hopeful however and says, “We are committed to bring peace and security to the people of Afghanistan,” he said, “and by end of the year it will be the Afghan soldiers who will take complete responsibility for the country.” Hopefully that will be the case and the US will be able to leave.

If the United States still followed the Monroe doctrine then we would not even have this problem. First off we would not have even sent in troops. That pertains to one of the doctrines principles, Non-Intervention. Non-Intervention is the United States would go fight in the Afghanistan wars if they affected us directly. They do not so we should not fight in them. The Non-Colonization principle could also be seen. We are not taking the country of Afghanistan to be ours but we are having bases set up throughout the country. Also the United States kind of dominates Afghanistan. As Chuck Hagel said Afghanistan has come a long way but it was mostly because of the United States. If we followed the Monroe doctrine the Afghanistan’s might have been in big trouble and would have lost the fight they were in. If we hadn’t interfered bad things could have happened to them.

Ahmed, Azam. "1,000 Extra U.S. Soldiers Will Remain in Afghanistan." The New York Times. The New York Times, 6 Dec. 2014. Web. 6 Dec. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/world/asia/1000-extra-us-soldiers-will-remain-in-afghanistan-.html?ref=world&_r=0>.

The Revolution of Race

            The revolution that I focused on was the one that happened in Brazil. Race was not a huge contributing factor in the people’s actions in the revolution. It was mostly social status that caused the revolution. It all started with the elites in 1789 revolting because of the reinstatement of imperial control and of new taxes. This did not end well and many people were killed or sent to jail. The only non-aristocrat that was in the revolution was Jose da Silva Xavier who was blamed for all the actions of the elites. He was hanged in 1793. In 1807 and 1808 Napoleon invaded Spain and Portugal. He imprisoned the Spanish king, Ferdinand VII, which then caused many wars for independence among the Spaniards. The Brazilian king avoided this same thing by leaving before the French troops invaded. The royal family of Portugal moved themselves and 10,000 other followers to Brazil. This was the only time that a European monarch ruled form one of their colonies. King John VI stayed in Brazil for 13 years and made Brazil equal to the level of Portugal. Brazilian and Portuguese elites were brought together and this was the beginning of the transition for independence.

            Napoleon was defeated in 1815 and made it able for the monarchy to return to Portugal. They remained in Brazil though. In 1820 there was a revolution lead by the Portuguese army. They demanded that John VI return to Portugal and would be a constitutional monarch of the empire. John VI returned in 1821 and his son Pedro remained in Brazil and ruled there. There was however some race that influenced things in the revolution. Portuguese member of the Cortes did not like the Brazilian representatives who they thought as unsophisticated residents of a backward province. The Portuguese also tried to restore Brazil to colonial status. In 1822 Pedro declared Brazil’s independence. This however was one of the few colonies to make a peaceful transition to independence. Pedro became Brazil’s first emperor as Pedro I. Even though Pedro was a main contributor to Brazil’s independence he lost a lot of support. He lived in Brazil since he was ten but he was still Portuguese. It is evident here that even though he lives in Brazil there is still Portuguese in him so he is scrutinized for that. People were skeptical of him since he was native to Portugal. People got even more skeptical and angry with him when he surrounded himself with Portuguese born cabinet ministers. A war occurred over the border of Brazil. The war was extremely unpopular with Brazilians. Because of all the struggles and the hatred toward him, Pedro left his thrown in 1831 and returned to Portugal. Race was not a huge contributor in the revolution but it did affect some outcomes. If people were not so upset of where you were born then Pedro would not have had to step down.

            I chose the article Protesters United Against Ferguson Decision, but Challenged in Unity by John Eligon. I chose this article because the problem in Ferguson has been happening for a while and is a major issue in America at this time. What happened was an 18 year old, Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed, by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, in Ferguson, Missouri. This caused a huge uproar among the African American residents throughout the whole United States. There was little evidence behind what happened and there were lots of different stories told by people. Darren Wilson’s case for murdering Michael Brown was not brought in front of court so he was not charged. This caused protests that soon changed to violent riots. People were burning down stores, cars and looting businesses. As said in the article “If we can’t stand up to the punks and the hoodlums who are giving the protest a bad name, you’re not ready to stand up to the police,” said Ms. Bynes, 35. “You throw a rock and hide behind a peaceful crowd, you’re a coward.”  This story in Fergusson proves that race continues to affect national identity in the United States. Nothing is going to change when there are violent riots. That is making the problem worse and causing the image of the protestors to be worse as well. The article talks a lot about how the riots are not really helping anything. It also talks about new groups that have been formed to fight for Michael Brown. A group called Tribe X marched in a mall and soon all the stores were closed. The leader of this group Alisha Sonnier says, “If you want to really affect people, especially those who are in power, you got to hit their pocket. We as a people cannot allow people to keep making money and a business to go on, and we can’t even get justice when our people die.” I feel that the riots and violence will not stop. When people are angry about something and they don’t know what to do they resort to violence. Some like Ms. Bynes and Alisha Sonnier are the smart ones that take the safe intelligent route. But there will always be the ones who are violent and think they’re doing the right thing but are really making it worse.  

Eligon, John. "Protesters United Against Ferguson Decision, but Challenged in Unity." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Nov. 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/us/protesters-united-against-ferguson-decision-but-challenged-in-building-movement.html?ref=us&_r=0>.

Congress of Vienna: What and Why?

In History we went over what would have happened at the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna was a meeting of countries trying to resolve big problems. In the activity in class we were given three choices and we tried to pick the one that Prince Clemens von Metternich, the Austrian host of the Congress, would have picked. The first problem concerned the map of Europe. And how the countries would have agreed to reorganize these countries after Napoleons defeat. The choice that was chosen was choice B. That choice explained that the French territory would go back to its prior boundaries. Prussia, Netherlands, Russia and Austria gained more land in this outcome. This made a balance of power between Britain, Prussia, France, Russia and Austria. This ensured one country could not take over the others. The second problem was, who would lead the countries? The outcome was that the brother of Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, would rule. This reestablished the Bourbon monarchy. This was the principle of legitimacy. That was when lawful; monarchs were restored. The third problem was what would happen if there were more revolutions? The solution was that the monarchs would make it more of an effort to stop the flow of revolution ideas. The Holy Alliance was also made, which meant that monarchs had a divine right to rule and revolution was treason against god. There was also the principle of intervention that was any country could help prevent another countries revolution.

The Principle of Intervention was used to help prevent the spreads of to much power and as well as the domination of one country over the other. It was also used to prevent revolutions. The whole concept of Principle of Intervention was that any country, not only the big countries, could send in troops to stop a revolution. This prevented the spread of unwanted ideas that the government didn’t want others to think of. It was a ideology used to restore peace and reinstate a monarchy if needed. This principle also played alongside the holy alliance. Which in short is that monarchs have divine right to rule and revolution is treason against god. That is why all the countries in the Congress of Vienna accepted to do this. They wanted to make sure something like Napoleon never happened again and that monarchy would always rule.

I think this is a great idea. Because the revolutions, which can possibly ruin a country as well as the ones around it, can be quickly prevented by the powers that country is surrounded by. There is a downfall though because this makes countries fight against each other. If two countries are allies and one has a revolution then its ally may attack it and kill many of its people. It forms a kind of distrust between countries. But there is the upside of the other countries would be in gratitude if you stopped a revolution. I think this is the right choice for the Congress of Vienna to make. Mostly because they do not want an accident like Napoleon to occur again. This way unlike Balance of Power gives power to all the countries not just the big select few (Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain and France). It is odd that Balance of Power is just balancing power between five big countries not all of them.

Here you see the Congress of Vienna. A meeting of all the countries that have battled in the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Basler04/CV 

Napoleon Bonaparte: A Respected Man

Napoleon Bonaparte was known to some people as a tyrannical monster. He wanted to control every piece of land he could get his hands on and rule it by himself. Others saw him as a great leader who improved the way everyone lived. Some people idolize him for his feats of greatness. And others mock him for his blunders. But no one can deny he was a genius when it came to war tactics. Napoleon may have ruined many people lives but he also did some good. Many historians and writers have written about Napoleon in many different ways. Some good, some bad and some in between. The fact that is true about Napoleon is that he was a very memorable man whose actions will be remembered forever. Not only did he greatly impact Europe but the whole world, even today.

As said before Napoleon did good things in is life and was seen as a good ruler.  For starters he was used by the French Directory (government) to improve France. He also helped improve the social system and boosted economy by controlling prices. He also encouraged new industries, which made more jobs and built canals and roads. Some may have said Napoleon improved political systems by eliminating the use of nobles and serfs. But he did substitute people being ruled by nobles to be ruled by him. Napoleon did though end people having to pay large fines to the church. Before being ruled by Napoleon citizens had less of a chance to rights of property and less education. Not only did he improve France and Europe but he also improved America. By selling the Louisiana Territory to the United States in 1803, America doubled in size thus beginning American expansion. Another way he improved the political system was he issued in a meritocracy. That is where people are paid based on skill not social rank. Napoleon also greatly improved Egypt’s government and made the Institute of Egypt, which studied ancient Egypt. Yet another way Napoleon improved the economy was he established the Bank of France and balanced the budget.

Napoleon was greatly admired by his soldiers. One soldier that commented on Napoleon was Marshal Michel Ney. In his writing he is talking to fellow soldiers about the old noble class the Bourbons. He is encouraging everyone to follow Napoleon because he is the best ruler and the only one fit to rule France. Michel says it doesn’t matter whether the Bourbons want to live under Napoleons rule. He is encouraging the soldiers to attack Paris and take it over calling themselves an immortal legion led by Emperor Napoleon.

The French nobility as well as the other countries nobility hated Napoleon. One of Frances nobility, Madame de Stael, did not appreciate Napoleon. She was the daughter of King Louis XVI’s financial advisor. She thinks Napoleon as someone who did not think before he acted and whose ideas are idiotic. The reason she probably thinks this is because Napoleon eliminated noble classes so Madame de Stael went from high up to nothing. She was also exiled from France. But it sounds like she also respects Napoleon at the same time. Because she says “His system was to intrude daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence…By alternating between cunning and force he has conquered Europe.” There it sounds like she doesn’t like him but respects him. But before that she said, “I do not believe that when Bonaparte became head of the government he had yet formulated the plan for universal monarchy.” There she doesn’t respect his tactics. Over all she really flips back and forth from her views of Napoleon but it is evident she did not like him.

Pretty much all the authors who have written about Napoleon agree he was a genius when it came to warfare. Napoleon controlled a lot of the world. He controlled mostly all of Europe and a lot of South America as well as parts of Africa. Because he controlled Spain and Italy he also controlled the lands they owned. John C. Ropes, author of The First Napoleon: A Sketch, Political and Military wrote about Napoleon as good and bad. He said “While we do not hesitate to speak with proper severity of Napoleon's reckless course in 1813 and 1814, of his obstinate adherence to a military solution of the difficulties which encompassed his Empire, of his indifference as a soldier to the evils of war, of his forgetfulness as soldier of his duties as a sovereign, -- while we recognize these defects and faults, let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity." As you can see even with his blunders Napoleon is still greatly respected. Marjorie Johnston wrote that if Napoleon died in 1803, he would have been remembered as an extremely heroic and great man. Johnston said he was “A great soldier, a great liberator, a great reformer and a great lawgiver…” But she later goes on to say because he lived later on in life he was known as a very greedy tyrannical person. Even though she says that Marjorie Johnston then says “…it has also been found impossible to deny that his work, such as it was, was accomplished with an exquisite efficiency almost amounting to perfection.” Norwood Young, a British author, said that Napoleon because of his battles assured his place in history. He called him a military genius and said he was just what France wanted at the time. The Headley brothers from New England said Napoleon was much more superior than any other ruler at that time. As well as saying “Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations....He had no rival in the tactics of war....His imagination was under the guidance of reason, whose intuitions were clear as morning light, and as rapid in their comprehensive action." But then the Headley brothers said that Napoleon did not have the right characteristics to be a ruler. He did not have the love for his citizens or the desire to help them.

Walter Geer wrote about Napoleon, saying he couldn’t accept failure and he lacked facts. To be a ruler you need your people to know you are telling the truth. Also if Napoleon made one slip up and lost a battle, he would no longer be the Emperor. The people expected him to win every time. Many agree Napoleon was a great leader. William Milligan Sloane, who wrote a four-volume biography of Napoleon, said Napoleon lost because of exhaustion. He said, “… the strategy of Napoleon is original, unique and unexcelled.” Sloane stated that Napoleon was so great because he was the most creative.

“The Jacobins needed a man, they found him in the unscrupulous Bonaparte; the Directory needed a man, they found him in the expert artillerist; France needed a man, she found him in the conqueror of Italy." Napoleon because of his great skills when it came to warfare and commanding an army has made him the respected man he is today. He may have at one point been a tyrant and should have spread out the power to more people not just himself. But as Ida M. Tarbell said “He was the greatest genius of all time, perhaps of all time, yet he lacked the crown of greatness—that high wisdom born of reflection and introspection which knows its own powers and limitations,” You don’t have to like Napoleon but you do need to respect him for some of the things he has done and how he has executed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

Starburst Extravaganza

In class lately we had an experiment that helped explain communism, socialism, and capitalism. In the beginning of class each student was given three pieces of candy, with the exception for three kids getting ten each. Then each student would match up and play rock, paper, and scissors. Whoever wins gets one candy from the other player. This went on for a while. I personally lost my three pieces of candy in the first three games. I then to gain more candy stole pieces of candy. This was easy in the beginning because when someone was playing a game they would turn their back and leave their candy on the table. It was a little tougher near the end since everyone knew I was stealing. A lot of people argued and yelled over the candy and I though it was very funny and a great game. When it ended everyone had different amounts of candy. The teacher collected all the candy. Some people got angry because they had lots of candy and they didn’t want to give it up. I on the other hand only had one so I was fine. That was the example of capitalism. We then moved to socialism where each student was given three pieces of candy. Every one was equal. No one played because they didn’t want to risk it. That was socialism, which was then basically communism since everyone was the same and no one wanted to play anymore. This was extremely fun and really helped me understand the difference between the different forms.

Marx’s theories on how the poor helped themselves focused on five main groups. The first is capitalism. Where every one starts with a certain amount of money and what they do with that money is up to them. The amount of money they start out with depends on their job, and possibly how hard they work. If they use it wisely they may make more. If they spend it freely that is their problem and they need to help themselves get out of it. This results in unequal classes. Then that would soon lead to complaining and maybe soon revolting. Then socialism is made. The government collects all the money and hands it out equally to everyone. Then come communism. Where everyone is equal in pay and there is no need for a government because everyone is equal. Smith’s idea of “the invisible hand” was similar to Marx’s views. The invisible hand meant the government would not interfere with the businesses. The supply and demand would regulate the businesses. If everyone wanted your product you made more of it and made more money. If no one wanted your product you would either go out of business or lower your prices/improve the product. The competition between companies will push each company to do better and therefore they will succeed.

I think communism sounds great but not to the extant that countries have taken it. There will never be a classless community where everyone has the exact amount of money as everyone else and the government doesn’t intervene at all. You would need to start a new country for that to be truly possible. A government can’t just say for everyone to give up all their money and then they will spread it out evenly. I think you need a culmination of both Smith’s and Marx’s ideas. You need a government to some extent to make laws but they don’t need to interfere as much if everyone is happy. But there is also the point to bring up. Who would be happy with just enough money to have the necessities? Of course those who have below the average, but what about middle class and up. The middle class and up make up a large amount of the population. Also people would feel cheated. If I worked harder than someone else and they got paid the same I would be mad. Overall as a whole we would be better off with different classes and a government that helps us when needed.  

Dear Cousin George

Having trouble with your new cell phone? Do you hate technology? Do you want to crush every electrical appliance in your home? If you answered yes to any of those questions than people may think you are a Luddite. But the truth is that is not what a Luddite is. A Luddite was a skilled weaver, mechanic or other person good with their hands that revolted during the Industrial Revolution. They followed a mythical man named Ned Ludd or sometimes Sir/King Ludd. There was a myth that he was working at his machine and an overseer said he was doing it wrong. Ned picked up a hammer and crushed the whole machine. The Luddites were mainly opposed to how the technology was used and who was using it. They believed skilled workers like themselves, for good wages, should man the machines. Because machines were getting more efficient and faster the businesses could fire all the skilled workers and instead replace them with young girls for lower pay. The Luddites would protest against the businesses and at times had acts of violence. But more often the Luddites would get hurt more by the guards sent to protect the factories rather than the Luddites imposing pain on others. They just wanted to get their point across but sometimes that harmed them. Below will be a fake letter to a cousin from the perspective of a skilled weaver.

Dear George,

As you know I work in a factory that makes clothing and other items involving weaving. You won’t believe this but all the workers are protesting. All of the men I thought to be my friends are revolting against the factory. They call themselves the Luddites and sadly I am one of them. I had no choice, it was either my job or turn my back on all my fellow workmen. I agree with some of the things they say but the violence is not needed. They are protesting for higher wages since they are skilled workers who are working the machines. But the machines are getting easier to control. Now the factory even replaced us with little girls. The machines are so easy little girls can handle the. The factories don’t need skilled workers like the others and me. Handlooms are gone and the machines are doing everything nowadays. Because of the Luddites I have no job and my life is at risk. If anyone destroys a machine and the police say I did it, I will be thrown in jail or even killed! Before the Industrial Revolution and the workers revolting I had a well paying job. People valued us skilled workers and treat us with respect. No we are just seen as ignorant and violent. I have no choice. I can’t go back to working. I guess I will just have to be part of the luddites and revolt and bring down the factories. Wish me luck George.

Sincerely,

Matthew

Luddites destroying a machine

King Ludd

Images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite