my final post

In an earlier post, I asked my group the "independence" question, which essentially is, can our nations ever be truly independent from their previous occupiers? Both Mia and Laura responded respectively here and here. Mia concluded that no, Ireland can never truly be free from all ties with England, while Laura told a story about how it was easy for the French to take hold of Holland soon after they had just gained independence. However, she also concludes that maybe the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands wasn't such a bad thing after all. While I have been able to find connections between Latvia and Ireland (seen here) and even Latvia and the Spanish Netherlands (see here), I believe that Latvia differs greatly from the two other once occupied nations. Latvia still faces the threat of Russian occupation even today, while I believe that both the Netherlands and Ireland are pretty safe from this happening to them again by Spain and England respectively. Mia, in a response post, concludes that, in the present, animosity between Ireland and England has pretty much fizzled with only a small taste of bitterness on the tongues of the older generations. The bitter taste, though, is still very present and very strong on the tongues of many, if not all, Latvians. Even though there was hope towards the end of the soviet occupation over Latvia, which can be seen in the photographs I discuss here, much of that hope has turned into fear since Latvia gained its independence in 1991. We saw how much clout the Russians still had with the oil crisis and citizenship problem, discussed in one of my previous posts (which was already linked to in this post). It is clear that Latvia is no where near fully independent and must always be wary of another possible occupation. Not only is Russia a lot bigger and much more powerful than Latvia, but with the recent and rather large influx of Russian workers immigrating to Latvia to work, Latvia's dependency on such workers (since so many native Latvians have left over the last century), the Russians' tendency to remain very Russian, speaking only Russian and isolating themselves in strictly Russian neighborhoods even while living in Latvia, and the fact that Russians take up about 50% of the population, Latvia has a right to be very scared. These problems are outlined in this article published in the New York Times in 2006 titled Latvia Fears New ‘Occupation’ by Russians but Needs the Labor . From this article and from what we saw happen when Russia wanted Latvia to change its laws, it is obvious that Latvia's "independence" is only a relative term and that the days of Russian occupation could be far from over.

a documentary and a response to miss certo's question (or at least an attempt at a reponse)

Mia asked, "What exactly were the rules instated by the USSR in Latvia? How did this oppression contribute to animosity between Latvians and the USSR?" in her post here. I will attempt to answer your questions while also discussing a documentary I found titled "My Latvia", which can be viewed here: Part 1 and Part 2. This post is sort of related to the post in which I discussed how the soviets took control of Latvia. That post is a continuation of the post in which I briefly discuss most of Latvia's history.

This short film does a wonderful job in exposing the injustices, oppression, and awful treatment that the Latvians experienced while occupied by the soviets. At the very beginning of the film, the creator, Albert Jekste asks us to look at what happened to Latvia and see that it could happen to other nations and has happened to other nations. Thus, we know from the beginning that this film is meant to act as a cautionary tale and and expository piece, showing the atrocities that took place in Latvia.

When the introduction is over, we see Latvia when it was enjoying peaceful independence, which they gained in 1918. The people in the images look happy and all is serene. It is clear that the Latvians were proud of this independence, which can be seen in the fact that they had well-attended song festivals and the like during this period.

However, there is a clear difference in the tone of the film when it starts to explain what happened when the soviets started to take over in 1939. it discusses how the soviets violated many treaties and such. All of a sudden, the background music becomes very heavy and foreboding and images of military machines and the like appear. These new images of Latvia and the descriptions of what is happening are very reminiscent of Germany under Hitler. The narrator goes on to explain how the new Latvian the new Latvian delegate read a speech in Latvian that had been written in Moscow that was not understandable to the Latvians, but they clapped anyways when the names of the communist leaders were read because they had to.

Next comes pictures of men who had been in prison in Latvia who were given high positions in the new soviet government. These pictures (or, rather, mug shots) are effective as it is difficult to believe that these criminals were made government officials by the soviets. Then the topic of propaganda comes up. The narrator talks about how propaganda was used by the soviets to convince the Latvians that they were still free. Along with this, images of the soviet flag being made and hung in Latvia are shown along with images of people painting pictures of Stalin and his cronies, which were hung all over Latvia. He also goes on to discuss how the media was also completely taken over by the soviets as “Latvian movies made in Moscow replaced our own”, “Radio Riga was taken over”, and all the newspapers were given to and run by the soviets and Latvian communists. We then are shown clips from a play that was written for Latvian children that essentially tells them to support communism and its mission to take over the world (many new plays and books that were supposedly written by famous Latvians were trickling into Latvia in large numbers at this time). We also see images of the collective farms people were forced to join and of pieces of paper that have written on them the death sentences of Latvians who were sent off to Siberia to work camps and were killed there.

Possibly the most disturbing aspect of this film was when they began to discuss the deaths of Latvians caused by the soviets. This is when the real injustices and horror appears. We are shown images of a torture chamber in a basement in Riga that the soviets used to torture Latvians. Then we see the dug up bodies of people who had been killed in the torture chambers. Close ups of their faces appear on the screen. From these disturbing close ups, one can see that these people were beaten and mutilated quite severely. Then we receive some statistics. 15,000 bodies were found (they believe there were still more out there) in these secret mass graves the soviets had made with a total of 50,000 Latvian deaths caused by the soviets.

All in all, it is pretty obvious that the Latvians were treated awfully during this occupation. Their lives as Latvians ceased to exist. Not only were they forced to join communism, but they were treated like dogs while doing so. Mia, I hope this helps you understand more thoroughly why animosity between Latvians and the USSR existed/ still exists. I think a major point to remember is that all of this ended less than 20 years ago. These wounds are still fresh and the bitter taste still remains. It is no wonder that the Latvians were so intent on not granting Russian immigrants citizenship status. I know that the Ireland/England conflict is somewhat modern (as in happened in the 20th c.), so I wonder id animosity still exists in Ireland towards England. Do you know, Mia? Laura, you're conflict happened a very long time ago, so I'm not sure how this pertains to you, but maybe there is still some animosity. Do you know of any?

some photography

While poking around on the internet, I found this series of photographs called "One Day in Latvia". These are photographs mostly taken in the late 1980s as Latvia was gearing up and advocating for independence but still a part of the Soviet Union. What I first noticed in the photographs was their dismal nature. Everyone looked depressed as did the landscape and settings of the photos. But then I saw a hint of happiness and hope within the photos. For example, there is one where a bunch of people are smiling, and it looks as though they are getting ready for a show. There is another wonderful one where a woman and a horse are meeting heads. Even though these photographs show the effects of the Soviet occupation, the sense of hope and revolution that was in the Baltic states in the late 1980s is definitely present. I just thought this was interesting.

post-independence crack down

After gaining independence, Latvia decided to make it very difficult for all ethnic Russians who had immigrated to Latvia after 1940 to gain citizenship. To do this, they revoked these people's citizenship and then set strict laws that required a thorough knowledge of the Latvian language and history to gain citizenship. This effectively rendered a massive amount of Russians "stateless". As a response, the Russian government cut oil exports to Latvia, which had served as an export station for said oil. As Latvia had depended economically on these exports, this put a large amount of pressure on them to change their citizenship laws. The issue is discussed thoroughly here. Now, Latvia has some of the most liberal citizenship laws in the world, which is no doubt a consequence of them needing Russia to keep economic stability. I find it interesting that Latvia was so keen on putting its nose up at Russia and showing the strength of their independence, a privilege long awaited, only to have Russia show its strength right back and ultimately get there way. This just shows how dependent on Russia Latvia was and still is. Does this mean that they are truly independent? If it was that easy for the Russians to get their way in that dispute, what else can they get there way with? Again, the issue of Latvia being much smaller and ultimately defenseless towards the bigger Russia rears its ugly head. In a way, I don't think that Latvia will ever be able to be truly independent of Russia unless Russia itself splits into many smaller counties. I understand that the EU has an obligation to protect Latvia if Russia ever decided to get really nasty, but a part of me also believes that if Russia really wanted Latvia, they would get it and the EU wouldn't care enough to step in. Maybe if we were talking about France or Germany, they would, but not for Latvia.

Laura and Mia: Do you think that your respective countries have gained full and complete independence? Does Ireland still depend on England? Would they be able to do anything if England decided they wanted to occupy Ireland again? Laura, how long did it take for the Netherlands to get on their own two feet and get rid of all Spanish influence? How did they do so? I see more hope for both of your regions, but Latvia is in a very scary position and might be for some time.

another connection!

This time Latvia can be compared to the Spanish Netherlands! Who knew? In Laura's post, she talks about how there was a Protestant revolt against Spain in the Netherlands, which was possible because of Spain's weakening empire but was met, nonetheless, by a Spanish army and was somewhat successful. At first I thought, "Wow, people would never have been so brave in Latvia under soviet rule to act in such a way as the Dutch", but, after some research into the matter, it turns out that a very similar situation occurred in Latvia. This source outlines this very well. Essentially what happened was that Germany finally became free of soviet rule completely thus influencing other nations under soviet rule, including the Baltic states, to make moves towards independence by following reformist leaders. However, the soviet union, not wanting to lose control completely, sent in troops to quell these rebellions, if you will, and were also somewhat successful. However, it was clear that these nations wanted independence and once the USSR collapsed due to internal conflicts and an inability to control all occupied nations, the Latvians did gain their independence and immediately instituted reforms.

I see another connection between Latvia and the Spanish Netherlands in the way they gained their independence. Neither of them really caused their own independence, though both sides fought for it and desperately wanted it. Rather, it was the weakening of the empires that occupied these two countries that allowed them to gain independence. This is kind of a scary position to be in because who is to stop from going into these small, defenseless nations now and just take over them? America gained independence because it proved to be stronger than the opposition, but such is not the case for Latvia or the Spanish Netherlands. These countries, although protected now in many ways, are thus ideal to be occupied by bigger powers, which is probably why they were occupied in the first place. I know that Latvia still lives in fear of another Russian occupation (more on that later), and I don't think that the EU would really do anything to help Latvia if Russia decided to come in. That is the downside of an independence gained in the way it was with Latvia: the constant fear that the same thing can happen again.

I ask Mia, why did Ireland finally gain independence? (If you have already addressed this, my apologies. Link me?)

a connection!

After reading Mia's post about the Irish fleeing to America during the potato famine and then the injustices of the courts in Ireland against Catholics, I realized many parallels to my previous post. In rough times, there seems to be a trend that when things get bad in the mother land, people go to North America and set up communities there. Also, during occupation, the originally Catholic Irish were treated poorly much like the Latvians were treated poorly by the Russians. However, the potato famine was not created by the British, which means that the Irish left the homeland due to a natural disaster, if I may call it that, rather than because of their oppression by the British. In the case of the Latvians, people left because they did not want to have to deal with the oppression of the soviet regime. I thus wonder, was there at all a trend in in Ireland in which people left because of the way they were treated by their occupying nation?

American Latvians

I found these two accounts of people who had grown up in America with Latvian heritage. The first one, written by a woman, recounts the story of when she first visited Latvia during Soviet reign in 1977. Although the story winds up being about the power of family and meeting all of her relatives for the first time, she begins by discussing how awfully repressed everyday life was for the Latvians during this time. She talks about how she had to stay in a hotel because it was illegal for her to stay with her relatives, how her hotel room was bugged, how, even though she unplugged her only-Russian speaking radio, it was always plugged back in when she returned, how she was not allowed to play a Latvian song on the piano because of who might be listening, and how her and her grandmother had to fill out a ton of paperwork just to travel to a different city within Latvia. She also talks about the water being of sewer-quality and having cockroaches in her room. This was life in Latvia under the USSR. Even though freedom has finally come to Latvia, the sanitary problems brought on by Russia's ignorance of poor treatment of the country still exist. My grandparents and parents tell me that I would not be able to survive in Latvia if I were to go because of the sewage problems it faces. It is obvious that what happened during the soviet rule did not necessarily end with independence. As is often the case, once Latvia was freed, it still had to and still does have to deal with the issues left over from the time when it was occupied.

The second story is written by a man who only got to go to Latvia for the first time when it gained independence in 1991. His family had never expected freedom for Latvia, so when it came, he was eager to go to the country he had learned so much about. I vaguely remember when my grandparents went back for the first time since independence. I believe it was in 1992. They were able to regain property that had been in the family before soviet occupation yet were, like the woman of the first entry, disgusted by the state of Latvia. They, like these Americans (although my grandparents immigrated to Canada rather than America), were part of a huge movement of people who escaped Latvia before the really rough years came and were not allowed back until independence. Having been in it myself, I have come to understand that the Latvians have formed a very tight knit community throughout North America. Since they were not allowed back to Latvia, they created these societies in North America to feel more at home. Ironically, these societies are fairly repressive as it is expected that you marry another Latvian, make sure all the children speak Latvian as their first language, and carry on as many Latvian traditions as possible. Also, these groups are so tight-knit that everyone knows everyone from all over North America. For example, the Latvians in San Francisco know the people in the Latvian communities in Chicago and Toronto. What was very interesting to me, as I read those accounts that I linked to, was that I could relate those experiences back to those of my father and myself. Many Latvians experienced the same hardships and thus chose to band together even when away from Latvia.

I have two questions or prompts for the other members of my group. One would be, was life as bad for the people you are researching under occupation as it was for the Latvians? What were conditions like? What were some of the problems that existed after independence was achieved? And then, did any of these people try to escape their home country while it was occupied? If so, did they also form tight knit communities in whatever place they immigrated to like the Latvians?

sexual revolution

While looking around the internet for something interesting to link to for the sexual revolution, I noticed a common thread amongst all the information I read about it. Most sources noted that during the 1960s people were the most free with sex and in general. Personally, when I think of the 1960s, I think of hippies in Golden Gate Park completely happy, which was caused by more than just sexual freedom, but still. Freud himself linked most of our psychological issues to sex and sexual repression. However, if we could be truly free in our sexual desires without any societal influences, it would seem that we could be truly free and happy, based on what Freud preached. However, society will always be around, and for the most part, society likes to keep a tight lid on sex, which can be seen by the conservative response to the sexual revolution. What I don't understand, though, is if everyone has sexual desires (including both men and women), why do certain groups insist on suppressing the idea of free sex when it benefits everyone and leads to happiness and freedom? Why, as a society, do we always feel the tendency to suppress ourselves? I know we have made huge leaps in sexual freedom since before the 1960s, and the sexual revolution did certainly help with this, but we are no where as free, as a society, as the hippies of the 1960s were. Because of this, we have people like Senator Larry Craig being ashamed of who they really are and what they really desire because, as a society in general, are not completely accepting of homosexuality. Many homosexuals feel the need to hide and suppress their desires in order to "fit in". While we may have made leaps what with acknowledging feminine sexuality, we still have a long ways to go, as a society. As Jefferson Airplane, a popular group at the time of the sexual revolution, asks, "Don't you want somebody to love?"

with a little help from my friends

It's hard to imagine a world without youth culture. However, our culture of music, hanging out with friends, and all that stereotypically pertains to high school is relatively new. Only after the WW2, when mass consumption led to a major economic upturn did kids start to attend high school in the way we think about it. Only then did rock and roll emerge. All of a sudden, there was an entire market dedicated to the youth. I think this movement marks shows and marks many important phenomena in European history. The movement, particularly rock and roll, really started in the US. Even though it traveled to Europe what with the "British Invasion", it is important to note that now Europe was being influenced by the US culturally and not the other way around in what we now call "Americanization". I think a perfect example of all that I am talking about is the Beatles, more in particular, their song "With a Little Help from My Friends". The Beatles are obviously one of the most poignant examples of youth culture, mass media and consumption, and rock and roll. They did come from Europe, yes, but they were a product of the first wave of rock and roll that had occurred first in the US. "Across the Universe" is a recent movie that portrays what the 1960s were all about in the United States by using Beatles songs. This shows how, even though the Beatles came from England, American culture and problems could characterize their songs. In this clip, we see a bunch of all-American, Ivy-League boys singing the famous Beatles song that I referred to earlier. While there is a character who comes over from England, it is more of a story of America in the 1960s than anywhere else. Also, I think it is important to note that the lyrics are all about friends. These are obviously kids who have led leisurely lives and who have gone to high school and thus have what we think of as "friends". I think it is strange to imagine that this notion and this life style hasn't been around for more than 60 years or so.

What Happened from the End of WW2 and On

In my previous post about Latvia and its history, I said that I would discuss what happened historically when the Soviets occupied Latvia in a later blog post. That blog post is now. I will now talk about the history of the situation that I will be further exploring for this project.

After reading a fairly detailed account of what happened here, I have become angrier than ever at what the Soviet Union did in order to obtain and keep Latvia as an occupied state. What the USSR basically did was claim that Latvia breached the Mutual Assistance Treaty, which, "under threats of military intervention, the Baltic states were compelled to sign... which for all intents and purposes meant that they had become military and political dependents of the USSR". Even though there was never a breach and the USSR had no evidence of there being one, they used the lie as leverage to give the Latvians an ultimatum and "demanded within six hours time to admit an unlimited number of Soviet troops to Latvia and to form a new government". Having no other option, and seeing what had been done to Lithuania a few days before when the Red Army invaded it, the Latvians had no other choice but to allow the USSR to effectively take over the nation. There had been agreements with the USSR before, and there were already a ton of soviet soldiers in Latvia since the start of WW2 and with the secret provisions of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, but now the occupation was official.

What I found most interesting and new from this source is what they call "Recent Misrepresentations". Apparently the Soviets believed that they were "protect[ing] a popular revolution in Latvia". Apparently, Russia still has this attitude, allowing it to deny that an occupation ever existed. However, there were no signs of uprisings or popular revolutions within Latvia until after the soviets occupied the region. This also happened with the two other Baltic states, Lithuania and Estonia, which means that Soviets claimed that all three of these places were calling for a revolution and the new elections, which the soviets produced. As my source points out, it seems a little too coincidental that all three nations would have been asking for the same exact thing.

In conclusion, Latvia had no say of what was happening to them. In fact, they were told that what was happening to them actually wasn't. The Soviets lied, cheated, and stole Latvia because they could. They killed tons of Latvians and made many others leave during the early stages of the occupation. The flavor that was left in the mouths of the Latvians was bitter, for obvious reasons, and life during the rest of the soviet occupation was repressive and awful with people always fearing their lives (far from the liberal constitution they lived under prior to the occupation). They were obviously not allowed to show it at the time, but once soviet occupation ended, the true attitude of the Latvians towards the soviets and their occupation appeared. I will be exploring those attitudes in later blogs, but for now I give the reasons why the negative attitudes exist.

existentialism

I wasn't there on the day that we discussed existentialism, so forgive me if what I say makes no sense pertaining to what you all discussed in class. What I do know, though, is that when I returned to class it was explained to me that existentialists justified their existence and how we ultimately have no control over our fate (we are all going to die) by claiming that as long as we we make our own conscious decision of how we are going to feel about something, we are free. The case of Sysiphus was brought up, and how, even though he has to continually push a rock up a hill for his entire existence as punishment, he is free because he can decide how he wants to feel about pushing that rock. Danielle seems to agree with this notion. She talks about our ability to make conscious decisions allows us to be free. However, I cannot seem to buy this argument when looking at the case of Sysiphus. I can see how it might be nice to know that we can cheat fate and its control in some way, but I don't think we ultimately can cheat fate, if fate exists, which it does is some way because we all will die. I could never make myself be happy if I was in the same situation as Sysiphus. That situation is just too miserable, and I don't think anyone could convince themselves that it is anything else. I realize that this is scary. What is the point if we are destined to die and we can't control how we feel about that? I don't want to end with the idea that there is no hope for us because I believe that other than death, fate doesn't exist. I believe that we are able to control everything up until death, and the ride is what is worth living for.

simulation

I was honestly disturbed by the simulation of the Cold War that we did in class. David discusses his take on the simulation here and here, and I think me missed the point entirely. I agree that maybe it wasn't completely realistic in the way in which spying was allowed, but I don't think that is what is to be taken out of what happened. In regard to the spying though, I think it is realistic that if one side invests more into spying like we (the Americans) did than they will gain better intelligence, which is what happened. Even if that wasn't what happened in real life, it doesn't mean that it wasn't possible. A simulation isn't supposed to go exactly as the real life situation, it is only supposed to set up a set of rules similar to how the real thing started and see what happens from there. From period 4's experience, I think it is clear that this simulation did not follow what happened in real life.

That aside, I think that the Soviets completely destroyed what could have been a good game and the world. I'm not sure whether it was because they wanted to sabotage Cas' game or prove another point, but I think that their decision in our class was one of cowardice and made too rashly to have ever successfully shown what would have happened. By that I mean to say that I think that the Soviets saw that the Americans were going to win. When they saw that we had out manoeuvered (sp?) them, the Soviets decided that they would bomb us while telling us that they wouldn't if we complied to some of their conditions. In real life, decisions aren't made like that and people are expected to live up to their words. I realize that there are tons of examples when people didn't live up to their words, but those things aren't taken lightly. Wars are caused because of it. In real life, agreements aren't taken that lightly. I think what happened was immature and unrealistic, ruined the game, and cheated me out of a free breakfast.

Latvia: A Quick History of an Occupied Nation

So I started off my research with acquainting myself with the history of Latvia in general, not just the history during the USSR's occupation. Coupled with my already existent knowledge of the nation's history, I came to discover that Latvia has bounced between occupiers for quite some time, going all the way back to the middle ages. I think that it is important to know and understand all of this history before I start to look more specifically at the USSR's occupation and its effects because these other occupations were also quite important in the development of the nation. So, for this blog post, I will be giving a quick rundown of the history of Latvia. (This knowledge comes from a ton of places, some not "linkable" as they were my dad or Opa (grandpa), so forgive me for my lack of linking. More of that will come later when my blogs become more specific).

In the middle ages, the Baltic region was one that the pope greatly wanted to Christianize. He sent missionaries to the region to accomplish this, but they were met with severe opposition. However, the once pagan peoples were finally converted by German crusaders, creating the basis for a very German-oriented region in the 13th century. The Germans, in fact, created what was known as Livonia, which included current-day Latvia and southern Estonia, and was defined as a group of feudal nations under German rule. Due to the German influence, this was the time when the Baltic states adopted Lutheranism as a primary religion. Under this new German rule, Riga, the capitol of Latvia, flourished as the major Baltic city for trade and economics, gaining key influence from the West and looking to the West for cultural direction.


Latvia experienced another type of "occupation" after the Lithuanian War in the 16th century, when Livonia became part of Poland-Lithuania and was mainly a vassal state for Poland until Swedish rule came to the region after a power struggle in the Polish-Sweden War in the early 17th century. The Swedish rule though, marked a prosperous time for the region as liberal reforms took place.

Next came the Treaty of Nystad in the the 18th century which marked the beginning of what was the eventually be complete Russian occupation of current-day Latvia. This occupation was far less welcome than any before it, though, as the Russians treated the people awfully, revoking many of the laws and reforms set up by the Swedes. The peasants of Latvia experienced the inequalities and manipulation that the Russian peasants experienced in the 18th and 19th centuries because they were, more or less, Russian peasants at this time. Despite this, though, a a sense of nationalism spread in Latvia as a capitalist society began to emerge in the 19th century. This new nationalism combined with the devastation the "nation" experienced during WW1 was enough to have the people demand independence, which they did declared on November 18, 2009. After some troubles, they did in fact gain this independence by 1920 and had free elections and a liberal constitution in 1922.

At the start of WW2, however, the Germans and the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which effectively split Europe between the two. After the war and German defeat, it came known that within the pact, all the Baltic states were to be under a soviet sphere of influence. From there the Soviet Union basically took over Latvia and did not let it go until the end of the Cold War in 1991.

I will explore this particular occupation in later blogs. The purpose of this blog was to show tat Latvia has been subject to occupation for most of its history and that the Soviet occupation was certainly not the first influential occupation Latvia experienced.

the two wars of the world

I think David makes an over-simplified claim when saying that World War I and World War II were the same thing. While in some ways, I think that they were a continuation of each other, I think both represented two very different phases of one conflict dealing with, as David pointed out, nationalism. The first World War, however, was about keeping the balance of power in check and not letting one nation get too powerful. Germany was not necessarily to blame for this war, even though they found themselves in a situation in which they were blamed at the end of it, as everyone had strong nationalistic feelings going into this war with tensions that had been stirring for decades upon decades. World War II, from what I have gathered, was more of a war dealing with the product of World War I, thus resulting from but not mimicking World War I. World War II was about fighting fascism, which arose because of the situations countries found themselves in after the devastating first World War and protecting democracy. The top priority was not necessarily maintaining the balance of power, but maintaining the ideology and existence of liberal democracy. It wasn't so much nation vs. nation as the first World War had been but more ideology vs. ideology. In other words, ideology came before the specific state. While the two wars share some similarities in that they involved the same players, the two took on different flavors, as one resulted from the changes the world had experienced due to the other.

i don't think we can ever understand why, which is a good thing

I think part of the reason that I have not posted so much in the past little while is that the topics we are now covering are becoming more and more troubling. Every time I think about Hitler, let alone see a picture of him or a film reel, I feel nauseous. Danielle asks how someone could have been able to perform all of the atrocities that occurred because of Hitler and his Nazis and why. Danielle, I don't think we can answer that question. I don't think anyone can ever understand why Hitler would chose to torture and starve millions and millions of Jews. I don't think anyone can ever understand how one human could ask another to chose between living alone or dying with his or her family. But I think that that shows that we are not like him. If we could understand why, something would be wrong.

I don't have much to say about Hitler. Many of us have tackled the subject in our blogs with interesting results. Some discussed Mein Kempf, others talked about the sheer disgusting-ness of his regime, and some even compared his allure to that of Obama's. I don't want to do the man any justice by saying too much about him. I believe he was a psychopathic coward. I believe he was a bad seed, a man lacking a heart and conscious. I think it would be giving him to much credit to say that at least he thought he was doing the what was best for his nation. There was no reason to exterminate the Jews, and as we pointed out in class, it can be argued that the amount of money he spent in doing so could have been put towards the war effort and made his army stronger, which would have been much better for his nation. His suicide was showed his cowardice, as he rather die than take on responsibility for the mess he created. I don't think there is any intellectual way to approach this man. He was a monster with no layer that anyone could ever sympathize with. He doesn't deserve a second thought.

OUR TOPIC-FINALLY!

After much conversation and much weighing of options, our group (Mia, Laura, and myself) have decided to explore the development of nations which were once occupied or controlled by larger and more powerful nations to that of their own and then given their independence due to many factors. Among the many areas we want to explore are, how did they gain their independence/ why did they want it?, what happened after they gained their independence?, why were they occupied in the first place?, etc. We each plan to take on a different instance in which this happened in history.

I am not sure what Laura and Mia are doing exactly (there was talk of Ireland's independence, Moorish Spain, Spain's occupation of the Netherlands, Poland, etc.), but I am proud to say that I will be exploring Russia, or the USSR's, occupation of the Baltic states in the 20th century. I have a personal affiliation with this topic, being a Latvian, and it is something I have always wanted to learn more about, it being the reason I live in North America/ exist. So, there it is.

on a more personal note

After reading Sam's post, which I believe Nate also responded to, I was reminded of something that happened in my own life. This is a story that has always stuck with me because of the way it made me feel at the time, which was a mixture of angry and confused.

In the 7th grade, I had to chose an elective course to take in the first semester of 8th grade. Among the options was a class that focused solely on the holocaust. Having been strangely interested in this topic since I was a child, having read books such as Number the Stars and The Devil's Arithmetic in elementary school, I decided that I wanted to take this class. Of course, we had to get our parents to sign off on our choices, and when I showed my father my list, asking him to sign, having never faced any difficulty getting my father to sign anything before (I could have gotten him to sign a test I had failed if I had wanted to), he said that he refused to let me take a class on the holocaust. Horrified, I asked him why not. His response was simple. He said that it was unfair of them to devote a whole class on the holocaust when more Russians and Eastern Europeans died under Stalin than had died under Hitler. My father is a very compassionate and also a very relaxed human being. I rarely hear him be so stern about such matters, and he is obviously of the school that considers Hitler to have been a complete monster. My father, however, is also 100% Latvian/Russian (mostly Latvian). He is the son of two people who escaped near death under Stalin's regime and who had family members and friends who were not quite as fortunate as them. He thinks that those deaths deserve as much attention as the deaths that are so much more often thought of with the holocaust. He believes that Stalin was just as much a monster as Hitler, as do many of the people who experienced Stalin's regime or who have close relatives who had. I write about this to tell you, Sam, and all those who wonder why Hitler is always thought of as the worst villain, which i also to believe to be the case (that most people consider Hitler more evil than Stalin), that there are people who do not, but those are mostly people who have a personal connection with it. Stalin treated the Latvians like dogs, as my father would say, just as Hitler treated the Jews as such. I hope one day that those losses are as recognized as the losses that occurred because of Hitler. The scary thing is, is that the losses of "my people" may not be over. As we saw this past summer with the whole Georgia conflict, Russia may not be done with it's desire to expand and control those nations it once had during the reign of the USSR, and people like my grandparents and father, are very concerned about the fate of their home countries if Russia once again decides to reenter them.

the lure of fascism

After reading Charlie's blog about fascism and all the consequent responses, such as Danielle's, I have to agree with them that fascism was not meant to give the people control, which is something Declan had trouble coming to terms with. However, this was why, I think, fascism was so appealing. Like Danielle discusses, the world was in shambles after World War I and before World War II, and no place felt more than Germany. It was easy, then, for people to turn to someone who seemed to offer them some sort of stability in a time when nothing was stable.

Think about your own lives for a second. Imagine this. You have just taken three very difficult tests and it isn't even lunch time yet. You are starving, as you forgot to eat breakfast in trying to cram in some last bit of study time before these important tests. You are planning to go off campus with your friends. Someone asks you where you want to go. You don't really care, as long as it means getting you fed and you don't have to think about it too much. For me, I would blindly follow someone who offered a solution or a place to eat. When I am that weary or that hungry, I just want the easy way out, and that is not to argue, but to go along with another's suggestion. That way, I don't have to think, and I will get what I really want,food, sooner. In this situation, I don't want to think anymore. I am too tired. I have thus given up my right to chose so as to reach a relative state of happiness sooner. I have to say, being an indecisive person, I am willing to give up my own desires more willing than not when in a large group. It scares me that if I was in post-war Germany, after having been through a tough war and experiencing serious economic trouble, I would be one of those people who would be happier at letting someone else decide for me if it means that I would eventually get food and stability. At that point, I rather not have to chose but have someone chose for me. When you are that exhausted, that option almost seems better. Not that I am advocating for fascism or anything. I am just saying that I can, on some level, understand why those people were willing to give up their individual rights. I don't think any of us an ever appreciate the whole extent of it, as we have never been through what Germany went through at this time, and I hope none of us ever will ever reach that point.

i too am a democracy girl

After reading Danielle's post about fascism in Italy, I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points she makes. However, I think an important assessment of fascism is missing.

When Danielle says, "I mean i can see why people would like this- especially after how the previous government FAILED at getting what they wanted from the outcome of WWI" when discussing Mussolini's speaking strategies and his regime in general, I have to add another point. Fascism was appealing to Italy, and all nations that have adopted such a regime since because they were/are weak. Fascism has only been successful in countries that were desperately looking for a way out from a terrible situation. Take both Italy and Germany for example. Before the fascist regimes, both experienced inept governments and terrible conditions both economically and socially. When either Mussolini or Hitler showed the least bit of a solution to their respective nations' problems, people blindly followed because of a few reasons: they couldn't think of anything better, fear, and it was a quick and easy option. Fascism, even though glorified (by some) for creating powerful, unified, nationalistic states, was a way out for the weak when one gets down to it. It wasn't about Italy or Germany being powerful, it was about them not being weak and, in this desire to not be weak, they turned to awful dictators. It takes time to build democracy. It's not an easy task. It is, however, easy for someone to brainwash some people, get a moderately sized army, and kill all those who oppose him/ place the blame on certain group so as to unify the nation. Basically, all that fascism is proud of (nationalism, unification, militarism, etc.) were really a weak and temporary way of solving difficult problems.

another day, another terror

After reading Nate's post about whether the Russian terror was justified or not, I decided I have to agree in that it was not justified. However, and correct me if I'm wrong as I am very tired at this moment, I got the sense that Nate was almost saying that it wasn't necessarily justifiable but it is understandable how Stalin thought so. Now, I know I am bias in the situation. Stalin killed a good portion of my grandmother's Russian family and treated the Latvians (I am mostly of Latvian descent), as my Dad would say, "like dogs", causing my grandparents to flee there home in Latvia during World War II. Aside from my personal feelings about the situation in Russia, I think it was really rather idiotic and is always idiotic when a ruler decides to kill millions of his own people no matter what ideology or the outcome. I believe that a government's soul purpose is to protect and govern the people of their states. What good is a state without its people? What good is a government that cannot be trusted? So what if Stalin brought the nation up to speed with industrialization? What good is that if millions of people who once lived in the country are no longer around to experience this boost of Russian status? I can vaguely understand, for ideological purposes, why Stalin would kill people who were very against him and very vocal or subversive in their ways, but he killed a lot more people than just those who were against him. Also, if you continuously believe that people are against you, they eventually will be. Even more so, a proper reaction to discontent amongst your people should be to listen to why so many people are against you in the first place and change yourself and your government instead of simply killing them. Industrialization did not necessarily need a communist regime to increase. As far as I can tell, there can be no connection made between Stalin's ideologies and the increase in industrialization. Thus, the two do not need to go hand in hand. Industrialization and the improvement of Russia as a whole could have occurred without the terror, which makes it completely and utterly not understandable and unjustifiable to me.

the trilogy

So we didn't cover tons of the same material this week (Mia, Laura, and I that is). Mia responded to and agreed with me on my post about the Bolsheviks, while Laura responded to but did not totally agree, or at least that is what I gathered, with me about my blog on how blaming Germany was essentially a not-so-great move on the part of the Great Powers. Since this is all I really have to go off of at the moment, I will respond to Laura's response.

Laura asserts, "When the nations met at the Palace of Versailles in January 1918, they couldn’t afford to not find a scapegoat". I agree that it would have been very difficult for them to have done anything other than place the responsibility on Germany. Italy, France, and Great Britain were in no position to pay back any debts to the United States because they were all suffering mass unemployment when the soldiers returned from the war on top of all other sorts of issues. The US, wanting to solidify its position, refused to pardon the debts but agreed to let Germany take the fall so that they would get there money. In turn, they pumped finance (is that the correct way to phrase it?) into Germany so that they could actually pay the US back, but this made Germany incredibly dependent on the US economy. When the US economy went to hell in the Great Depression, Germany suffered incredibly. Now, no one could have predicted the Great Depression, but the fact that Germany was made to be so dependent on another nation shows a bit of irresponsibility on the US's part. It is possible that the US should have never allowed the Great Powers to place the blame and the debt on a torn-apart, fragile, Germany. Maybe they should have considered that at this point, Germany was very vulnerable to a revolution like the one that had happened in Russia, and, at the sign of an problems, Germany would have been very susceptible to one, which they were. That is why Hitler's regime was able to get so out of control. When the US failed, Germany really failed and thus the weak turned towards the only man who seemed to offer them a way out, much like placing the blame on Germany offered the Great Powers a way out of their debt. Like Laura said, what comes around goes around, and I think the West should have been a bit more savvy to this notion.

allemagne

Charlie discusses the blame placed on Germany at the end of the war, and I agree with his claim that consequences that the country had to face weren't entirely justified. I also agree with Charlie when he says, "Germany was, in some ways, the country primarily responsible for the escalation from one country's internal conflict to a continent-wide war". However, Germany, arguably, suffered the most in terms of casualties and discontent at home, even before the Treaty of Versailles. I couldn't help but notice that in the simulation of the Treaty of Versailles in class on Friday, that everyone, including me, was so quick to place all of the responsibility of the war and all the debts caused by said war on Germany. We all shouted out the numbers of our casualties and tried to make each other see how much we suffered, but no one recognized that Germany would beat us in those complaints and numbers. I understand that they needed to be defeated, and I'm not trying to say that I am pro-German in this case because I'm not in the least, but I do think it is unfair that they were made to assume all of the blame and debt. I also think it was irresponsible for nations to beat Germany down so much, as Germany was in severe danger of being influenced by Russian socialism in its weakened state after the war. Placing more troubles on Germany would only accelerate the rate at which the German people called for a revolution seeing the success such a revolution achieved in Russia. This is exactly what happened. This is exactly what happened. Instead, though, of just communism, Germany became subject to a terrible fascist regime. If the other nations had assumed their own responsibility and agreed to pay their own debts over time instead of taking the easy way out and making Germany pay for everything, Hitler may have never been able to gain the power he did and World War II could have maybe been avoided.

you say you want a revolution...

Jonathan says in his blog that the Bolsheviks were almost like the Mensheviks in that they waited for the opportune moment to cause a revolution as opposed to forcing it. I have to completely disagree with this sentiment. This revolution was completely forced. Lenin needed to actively find followers. Once he found a vulnerable group, he made them see why a revolution should happen but it wasn't as if the country was naturally headed in the direction of the Bolshevik revolution; they needed to be guided.

Once the revolution was successful, they did not maintain power in a very natural way, either. Instead of trying to appease those who disagreed and appealing some to them, Lenin just killed them all. Russia may have been ripe for a revolution what with the way the Tsar and then the provisional government dealt with the war and the awful conditions for the working class, but everything that occurred to make that revolution happen was far from natural. In fact, it was almost all forced by Lenin and his minority of followers.

summed up

This week was all about Fred and Freud, and this is most apparent in everyone's blog posts for this week. However, having written two separate blog posts on the subjects this week already, I would like to address an issue brought up in some, but not a whole lot, blogs this week that was not covered or discussed in class, which is the topic of the rise of newspapers and mass publications. Elizabeth casts a sort of negative tone on the rise of newspapers because they allowed writers to twist the original ideas of great thinkers such as Darwin and Freud into what the writer saw fit for either making a point or simply selling a paper. Mia compares the situation of newspapers in the early 20th century to the situation of newspapers today. In both cases, I feel that newspapers and journalism need a little defending and not necessarily for the authors of those posts but for society in general.

The fact that a major city newspaper, such as the Chronicle, may be closed is tragic, at least to me. For years, readers have depended on good writers to unearth stories and dedicate time into writing expository pieces meant to educate the greater public of the "goings-on". Now, however, people can receive their news in a flash. Little to no thought has to be put into an online notice or video compared to the toil Woodward and Bernstein would have put into an article. Because the newspaper is dying out, journalists have less and less opportunity to show their true skills or have their discoveries and thoughts as widely read as before. If this is to be the case, and people eventually only rely on very short video snippets to get the entirety of their news, what will become of journalism? Despite what Elizabeth says on how it was potentially dangerous, journalism has often served a lot of good in society. For example, we learned that Morel was able to discover what was really happening in the Congo during Imperialism and publish his findings of the atrocities. It would have taken time, effort, and a lot of investigation to get to the bottom of that story. If newspapers die out, will there be anymore Morels? Will there be any room for investigative journalism? Will quality articles that take weeks or months to write become irrelevant next to other means of receiving news almost instantaneously over the internet? While journalists may sometimes want to push an agenda or sell papers, I think that the death of the art form would be a major loss to the world and the way we understand it.

freud

At the end of Wednesday's class (the day we learned about Freud), Cas asked, "Do you guys think Freud was a product of his time?". I have to say, yes, I definitely think that he was. At first, I was upset at Freud's assumption that people are "creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness" (from "Civilization an Its Discontents"). However, Freud was writing this after witnessing World War I, one of the worst, most brutal wars the world had ever seen. The atrocities committed during that war were enough to horrify anyone and send anyone concerned with the human condition searching for explanations as to how humans could be so awful to one another. Freud thus decided that it was human nature to act in this way.

Likewise, Freud was working with people in a time when anxieties in the mind would have been on a sharp up-rise due to the new problems posed by modernization. The majority of people no longer lived quaint, farm lives and hadn't for a while. But as time went on, cities expanded, class struggles showed themselves with union problems and the like, and political atmospheres changed. Europe was becoming a completely different place at the turn on the century, and this new era brought with it, what seemed to be, mostly struggle. Thus, Freud dealt with and explained these anxieties as they were happening around him, making him a product of the time he lived in.

fred

I do believe that it was Nietzsche who said "God is dead". He also believed that Christianity was "Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life". This was due to another of his beliefs that Christianity serves as an ultimate example of the slave valuation as it promotes suffering and guilt and thus, devalues a person's life on Earth so that life after death may be inexperienced in an eternal paradise. Our "will to power", which is essentially our will to live, is suppressed and so we, and civilization, are ultimately hurt by organized religion.
However, Nietzsche also admitted that Christianity served a purpose. He claimed that it provided humanity with a meaning so as to make suffering endurable, but I think he is missing another purpose Christianity serves, which is a purpose most people tend to forget even today. I feel like Nietzsche and a lot of the critics of Christianity today hold this idea that the religion consists of only bible-hugging, born-again, fundamentalists. There are, most noticeably in the United States, tons of those people whose severe dedication to the words of "God" and the Bible have put Christianity, on the whole, in a bad light, which, at least to me, is understandable. However, I do believe that the morals that Christianity teaches, aside from how they are sometimes carried out and mutilated, are not ones to denounce. There are many people who are not fundamentalist Christians but who still believe that the basic teachings between right and wrong and how to be a better person even when it is most difficult to do so, should not be discounted. These teachings aren't about feeling guilt or necessarily enduring suffering in this life so that the next may be better. In fact, the point of these teachings is to make it so that one does not suffer as much and finds happiness in this life. I'm not sure if Nietzsche ever addressed this, but if he had asserted that Christianity's tendency to teach people how to be better, kinder human beings was part of the "nausea and disgust with life" that he accused Christianity of exerting, he would have been a much bolder and a much different figure than I originally thought he was.

summarizing

I have noticed a lot of discussion of the debate occurring on these blogs, so I will address the debate and the topics of such in my summary blog.
First of all, I feel like most of my thoughts are expressed in my response to Declan's post, which can be seen below this post. Many of you see to think that the Bolsheviks had a leg up in the debate. As Charlie (at least I think this is Charlie--I get confused at who is who sometimes) said, the Bolsheviks " had the distinct advantage of having the future on their side". Someone else said, and I am sorry that I cannot remember who it is/ I don't have the energy to go and read through all of the blogs again to find out who this was, it was inevitable, in an unfair way, that the Bolsheviks should win.
Despite my personal links with the Bolsheviks (they killed my great-grandparents and forced much of my family to flee Russia), I have to say, to the fact that in both classes they won, "duh" and I don't mean this in a bad way. There was really no other direction to go in. The Tsars and their governments were corrupt and had been for a while, as many of you addressed in your blogs. Russia, in order for it to become and remain a world power needed to immediately oust the tradition and "backwardsness" of the past and move into the future, which is what the Bolsheviks wanted and is why they, of course, will always win.

in response

to Declan's Post

Even if "some of [the Bolsheviks'] more specific promises were impractical and destined to fail", why shouldn't they at least try? While universal education may have been difficult and somewhat unrealistic, isn't it better that the government tries to get as close to universal education as possible? I think we would all agree (at least, I hope so) that education is a good thing and that all children deserve the chance to be educated. So why not try to get there? So what if it is a huge "ridiculous" dream? I would rather be in a group of people who wanted universal education than a group of people who didn't care at all about it.

hoiboit

I know that a lot of, if not all of, us feel passionately about Herbert Spencer's and all of the social Darwinists' beliefs. Yes, they were used as justification for racism, imperialism, capitalism, big business dominance, and a whole host of awful things. Another reason that his argument is preposterous, though, is that it doesn't even make any sense. He suggests that the poor are the way they are because they are naturally inferior. If these beliefs were to correlate with those of Darwin's natural selection, that would mean that the poor would die out. If Spencer thinks that it would be natural for the poor to die out, where would he think society would go? There always needs to be a poor class, unless we all become Marxist socialists. Even if the poorest class dies out, there will need to be another tier to fill that place. In order for there to be a rich class, there needs to be a poor class. It's not like with natural selection when a species dies out it ceases to exist. As long as capitalism prevails, a poor class of some sort or another will exist. Also, there are many rich and powerful people who are genetically not "superior". History has shown us that some of the greatest rulers have had offspring who have proven incapable of maintaining his or her parents power. Even though they were born from and are a part of what Spencer would call a "superior" race, they can be as idiotic as someone who Spencer would have considered a part of an "inferior" race. Thus, Spencer's arguments are, at most, ill-founded excuses conjured up so that white, rich men could sleep better at night.

more on feminism

I really don't mean to play the feminist role here, and I apologize if I write about this topic too often and make it seem as though I'm obsessed because I'm not. However, as Danielle so astutely pointed out in class the other day, MEH (or at least Period 4) is a very testosterone heavy class. I have noticed how we haven't really discussed women of late, which is understandable as it is not as interesting as some of the other topics discussed in this chapter, so I am using this blog as an outlet.
The family has always been considered a valuable and crucial institution in the Western world as it is seen as the stabilizing force in a lot of ways. Many think that the decline of the family would mean the decline of Western civilization as we know it, and this attitude was certainly prevalent in the late 19th century when people "believed feminism would dissolve the family, a theme that fed into larger discussion on the decline of the West amid a growing sense of cultural crisis"(836-837) because women were/ often still are seen as the only person really fit to run a household. However, a lot of the conservatives who felt this way about women in the household had no problem hiring these women to perform jobs that there were not enough men to fill and also because "a need to fill so many new jobs as cheaply as possible made women a logical choice"(835). The jobs were often in the realm of government and corporate bureaucracies, health care, and education. While some men still thought that even these jobs were an inappropriate place for women, most people encouraged this new work force. However, if women were working, they were not spending time in the home, which means that the men who considered women not eligible to participate in politics because of their duties as wives and mothers but then encouraged them to take jobs because they were cheap labor were hypocrites. Women were used conveniently by men whose supposed "morals" were just blatant excuses.

imperialism summary

As I have been reading some other people's blogs about imperialism, I am seeing a lot of outrage at what I also believe was not Europe's finest hour. David and Mia speak of the racism on the part of the Europeans and how their belief in their superiority fueled the desire to partake in imperialism. Declan suggests that Rhodes does not deserve to have such a well-respected scholarship to be under his name, to which Leigh agrees. All of this shows a certain level of outrage at what was happening. I actually do agree with all of the outrage and comments made by these people regarding imperialism, but I feel like we are too quick to judge the Europeans. I mean, sure, there were some individuals who performed some atrocious and unforgivable acts like much of what happened in the Congo and in South Africa in the Boer Wars, but for a second I would like us all to imagine what it would b like to have been a young business man in London at this time or even a poet like Kipling. You are seeing the immense wealth that is pouring into Western Europe, and more particularly England, because of imperialism. The world around you is flourishing. You are far removed from the actual places and thus understand very little about the people and the culture. It has been drilled into your brain that the Europeans are helping these people by civilizing them. Thus, you love imperialism and think people like Rhodes are the heroes of your time, which Leigh addressed. Were these people as morally decrepit as we like to think they were? I think the real problem is a lack of understanding. I like to see the best in everyone, and I really believe that had most Europeans understood what was happening and had first hand experiences, they would have been shocked and appalled, as well.

the injustices of history

Why do we feel the need to expand? Aside from all of the awful ways in which the Western world secured rule over the lands in Asia and Africa, why is it that we cannot ever be happy with what we have? This is an issue for countries as well as with individuals, even today. In America, we have a culture of consumerism in which people just keep buying more and more even though they don't need it. Is it a matter of just keeping up with the Jones? It was sort of about that in Europe. For example, Germany entered the whole "race for Africa" so that they would not wind up the only major power without some land to claim there. But why can we never be content with what we have? What is the allure of having more money than knowing what to do with, or in the case of Europe, more territories? Europe was able to survive economically without those resources gained in Asia and Africa for centuries before they decided to go into those places? Why could they not stay on this path?
I guess I've just been really troubled by history lately. It is full of some many tragedies that could have been avoided had people just decided to remain content with what they had. I often feel that history lacks human compassion. Like in class the other day, when that man said that the atrocities that occur in war are not to be judged in the normal way, even though the people he was defending killed those who had surrendered. Where is the human compassion in this? We were asked to respond to this in class, and I couldn't at that moment because I was so horrified. My answer now is that that no matter then instance, those types of monstrosities are never OK. A human life is a human life no matter where it is or in what situation, and there is never an excuse for forgetting this.

food for thought

I have always been shocked and horrified at Imperialism and the justifications behind it. It is such a travesty that the Europeans felt that they were superior and thus validated to go into places like Africa and Asia and completely disrupt their societies and ways of life. Furthermore, the amount of bloodshed that was caused due to Imperialism is atrocious. Many people started to feel this way in Europe itself when Morel exposed the ugly truths behind what was really happening in the Congo. Why didn't horrors like that cease, though? Why was it that the Europeans kept forging war and committing monstrosities? The answer, to me, seems simple. It is because of the resources like the rubber, oil, etc. that the colonies provided for Europe. As much as I like to show my disdain for imperialism, I have to wonder at what the Western world would be like today if none of its major powers participated in "extending its authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over over nations"(I think I'm quoting Cas' powerpoint's definition of Imperialism?) I wonder if our countries (the US and the major European powers) would be as wealthy if those other places were not exploited or if we were not getting oil from the Middle East today in what I consider to be modern day Imperialism. Would we be enjoying our heightened place in world affairs and politics? Would we even have enough rubber and oil? I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but I do feel like the territories that were gained through Imperialism were huge assets. So I wonder about, even though there is so much outrage around the issue of imperialism, if we would all be willing to possibly live in a very different Western world than the one we know today? What would be the state of our nation if Imperialism never happened?

summary post (for last week-my apologies)

As I reviewed the blogs from last week, I found that people were sort of all over the place. I, myself, considered last week to be more of a review week and thus felt that little material was covered/ resonated with my fellow classmates, which was sort of apparent in the blogs. Most people, in their summary blogs, talked about how nationalism was a major topic under discussion, but I felt that that was more the case for the week before last and thus wrote my last summary blog on nationalism and my thoughts about it and responses to other people's thoughts. This week, I can honestly say, I felt like the only topic we really covered was the Crimean War, which Jonathan, Zak (in response to Jonathan), and Nate all discuss. Jonathan claims that "Alexander II of Russia freed the serfs in a massive, liberal move. And yet, there was little practical impact, and it was in order to strengthen the nation. No more was reform the turf of radical revolutionaries: it had been co-opted so that rulers may increase their domestic support." I have to disagree with this entirely, much like Zak does. For starters, there was a lot of practicality in freeing the serfs because they were then able to help achieve "Westernization" and industrialization in Russia as they could now work in the factories. Like Zak said, Alexander II exploited the workers so that he could bring Russia out of the middle ages and into the future, which would make Russia more competitive in world markets and boost the economy, both of which are certainly very practical for a nation. I don't think Alexander was looking for domestic support when doing this; I think he just really concentrated on bringing his country up to speed, and if he did create some domestic peace it would be an effect not a cause of the emancipation, like Zak said. Similarly, Nate adds at the end of his post that "The impact of the Crimean War was terribly large not in the short-run, but in the long-run." I have to, again, disagree, in that the Crimean War really showed Russia, on an immediate basis, that they needed to get with the program and industrialize if they had any hope in becoming a major European power. I don't mean to say that this was all good, as the exploitation of workers is never a positive situation, in my mind, and I'm not Alexander II's biggest fan. However, it is important to note that despite whether or no one considers Alexander II's conservative and manipulative tendencies, the Crimean War and the consequent emancipation of the serfs in Russia were both very important and practical for Russia's development.

realisme

Realistic art is one of my favorite genres in the way that it tackled issues plaguing society and consisted of many believers in social justice, but there is a catch to that. I do not believe that realistic art could have succeeded if it had not come after Romanticism. We read a story in French a few weeks ago by Marcel Aymé called "Oscar et Erick". I will not bore anyone with a summary of the story, but the basic moral was that people shouldn't paint just what they see because art is supposed to be creative and about the imagination, which Romanticism certainly accomplished, and I agree with this statement. Thus, I feel that it is important that Romanticism came first because with only realistic art, art would frankly be boring, which is a problem that I feel the movement of realism runs into quite often. However, the movement came at a perfect time, when conditions for the poor were as awful, sending messages that challenged society to evaluate how these people were treated and the conditions they were forced to live in. Realism is so far from boring, in that regard, even if some of Balzac's descriptions can run on forever and depress the happiest person because he does it in the most amazing of ways.

Otto von

I have always secretly admired Bismark. If you haven't noticed, I'm a pretty liberal in my views, so Bismark's existence should fundamentally insult me, but, I have to admit, the man was such a beast (and I mean that in the good way). Germany, in the matter of 50 or so years, went from consisting of over 300 separate principalities to one, united, and extremely powerful nation and Bismark deserves most of the credit. Even though he manipulated countries to go to war and cost people their lives to that he may come out victorious, even if the wars had nothing to do with him (like he did with Austria and Denmark), I still cannot help but to be in awe of the man. In terms of his politics, with the whole influence from Rochau's idea of "realpolitik" and what not, I'm torn. While I'm one of those wide-eyed "supporters of constitutions and Enlightenment conceptions of rights"(762), there is something to be said about Bismark's pragmatic approach to politics. He is one of the examples from history that makes me believe that sometimes, a ruler cannot be best friends with the people or has to look at a situation in a more realistic than idealistic sense or both. While I usually prefer rulers to always consider what's best for the people, I understand that sometimes rulers need to be pragmatic about how much they act on those considerations. There is a point when we need to stop being dreamers and work in a realistic frame, and sometimes I can forget this. I don't know why, but for some reason, Bismark is one of those figures that I greatly respect despite his obvious conservative and sometimes ***hole tendencies.

nationalism

Due to an awful illness, which has seemed to only get worse, I missed out on a lot of the discussion revolving around nationalism this week, but after reading some of the posts of my peers, I can see that nationalism was a main topic of the week. Some major points or questions, if you will, that I noticed were those concerning what defines a nation and whether or not nationalism is a positive movement. Both questions are difficult to address, with no clear-cut answers, as one can see by the varying opinions. David seems to think a nation is defined by exclusivity, while Thomas considers a nation to be defined by the people and what they agree is legitimate. As for the exclusivity point, I think that a nation includes all those who want to be a part of said nation. There are obviously issues concerning citizenship and physical location, especially today, but, when considering 19th century Europe, I think it is fair to say that if someone wanted to be German, they were part of Germany.

Now, concerning the issue of whether or not nationalism was positive, I would have to say, ultimately, no. The idea of nationalism, in its original state, was positive because it promoted change from below and liberal ideas such as "constitutions, reforms, [and] new political communities"(754). The idea of banding together with fellow citizens to fight for a common cause created a very romantic notion of a nation, one in which Mazzini perpetuated. However, once conservatives took control of nationalism and tried to bring about nations through government, the idea of nationalism lost its original appeal. People were cast aside and excluded based on ethnicity, which is a point Danielle brought up. War, death, animosities amongst different ethnic groups, and borders followed in the wake of this new nationalism, none of which I consider to be positive. I think that many of the world's problems would be solved if Mazzini's ideas of nationalism had succeeded and the obsession with borders had never existed.

women

While England was possibly the most liberal nation in Europe during the mid 19th century, the government's refusal to extend voting rights to women is troubling. I greatly admire that England was able to double "the franchise by extending the vote to any men who paid poor rates or rent of £10 or more a year in urban areas and to rural tenants paying rent of £12 or more"(757) with the 1867 Reform Bill. This was certainly progressive and very liberal, compared to how the situation was before in England and still was on Continental Europe. However, the issue of woman's suffrage was not addressed in the Bill. When the issue was brought up in the decade after the 1867 Reform Bill was passed, which is considered "the high point of British liberalism"(757), even liberal leaders showed opposition to woman's suffrage claiming that "female individuality would destabilize family life"(758). Despite the fact that women have played a critical role in getting rid of many evils throughout history, like they did with their efforts in the reform campaigns of the Anti-Corn Law League and abolition of slavery in England, they were once again cast aside, even by men who considered themselves liberal. The only rational I can distinguish behind the motives of these men is that they, like the wealthy land owners, were insecure of having some of their power taken away by people they considered to be capable of taking it away, even though women had proved that they would fight for and represent the common good if given more power.

give up the ghost

If conservative policies have proven to cause anger and revolt, why do rulers such as the Habsburgs, always return to a conservative government? 1848 was a critical year in European history that showed the "major players" how discontent the populace was with the way things were. Yet, after giving into some liberal demands, like the Austrian government under Ferdinand I when they allowed male suffrage and a single house of representatives and "agreed to put forced labor and serfdom on a path to abolition"(751). However, when the Austrians were able to bring Russia on their side, they attacked the squashed the rebellion, effectively getting rid of the liberal government in Vienna. Similarly, Italian rulers like Charles Albert, were unwilling to give into the liberal ideals of Mazzini, who represented the popular movements of the people, favoring a more conservative government, instead. It doesn't seem to make sense that all of these rulers could be so against laws that would greatly satisfy the people they are supposed to rule over. The argument could be made that nationalism would be easier to accomplish if everyone was satisfied rather that just the elite. It make absolutely no sense that any oppressed people would want to participate in a "nation state" that does not respect or help them. If the main goal was for there to be a strong sense of nationalism, why wouldn't these rulers sacrifice their ideas of how government should be handled, not only for the greater good, but for the cause of nationalism?

aw, how romantic!

While reading about the Philosophes and imagining them in their plush Salons discussing rationality and matters of philosophy, I found myself becoming very envious. However, I also found myself fondly imagining a life in the Shelley household or on the horizon line of a Turner painting, concentrating on the emotional aspects, rather than the rational, of human nature. I romanticize, no pun intended, both the 18th and 19th centuries in this way, which makes me question how the Classicists and the Romantics could disregard the others' ideas of human nature so easily. I believe that there needs to be a balance between the rational and the emotional because humans are both. Goethe was possibly so brilliant because he was able to capture both of these aspects of life. Romanticism was key in that it reminded humans that irrationality could be more satisfactory that rationality, lending way for some of the most creative works to come into existence. It also liberated women and men from long-held stereotypes that suggested women to be more emotional and men more rational because, by this time, the world had witnessed members of both genders being both. Both the Enlightenment and Romanticism are critical when considering the human condition, and just because one is favored at one moment, does not mean that the other cannot be favored at another moment.

in response to

this post

which was in response to my previous post

I personally love to ski. I have seriously contemplated moving to Vail and becoming a ski instructor by day and a bartender by night so that I can wake up on those powder mornings and ski until my heart's content. I don't think it is fair to call that a temporary happiness because for some people it isn't. Some people choose to not participate in a job that offers a whole lot of security so that they may be happier more often, even if poorer. I guess what it boils down to is if you rather have certain security or certain happiness, not that the two can't be related.

Also, why can't we do the things we love? If someone loves to watch "frivolous" TV shows, why shouldn't they do it all the time? What is stopping them? Maybe our parents tell us that we can't always do what we want because they are our parents and always want us to be protected, but how much are we willing to give up for protection?

I did not mean to portray UHS students as money-obsessed because I know the opposite to be true, but we are obsessed with success, as a whole, and success, today, apparently means having enough security so as to not end up selling ShamWows or whatever one thinks is equivalent for them. At what point did security surpass passion? Who are we trying to please? Maybe I am naive, young, wide-eyed, idealistic, and all that, but, for some reason, I cannot come to terms with the fact that my only possible way to put food on the table and clothes on my back might be to sit at a desk for the rest of my life, completing work that has no significance in my life or the lives of others, and while this somewhat reckless attitude may cause my mother some sleepless nights in the future, I figure that at some point I have to stop worrying about her expectations and hopes and concentrate on my own.

is repsonse to

this post


I am personally greatly troubled by the idea of working at a job that means nothing to me so as to achieve the ultimate "End", which, for me as well, is happiness. I want to be happy, but, for me, having the work that I do mean something rather than being a means to and end, is what would make me happy. I find myself most miserable when I am catering to the "man" by doing meaningless assignments in and cannot see any benefit. Some of the work we get in high school is a perfect example. There are times when I have a french grammar exercises or math problems that I know how to do without actually doing them, but if I don't do them, then my grade goes down and a natural progression of not getting into college, not getting a good job, etc pursues. However, in the past year, I have found myself not completing these tasks. I love sleep, and I much rather be happy while sleeping than staying up that extra hour to complete meaningless tasks. Have my grades suffered, yes, but I am more happy and well rested than if I were to have given into the pressure and completed those meaningless assignments. I guess my question is, if the ultimate goal is happiness, why spend a good 10 years of your life (and the time when you are supposed to enjoy yourself the most as youth is fleeting) working your ass off at an entry level job so that you can be happy when you are old and cranky? Or, if you are just going to school and getting good grades so that you may get into a good college and for no other reason, why attend school at all or pay for a school as expensive at UHS? Why not take that money and go skiing and to baseball games now? If you are going to be spending a great amount of your life working, why not be happy when doing your work if happiness is the ultimate End? This is all something we will have to struggle with in our lives, and there are no easy answers. I face this struggle every day as I sit down to do homework. I don't want to seem like I am being critical of anyone. I completely understand wanting security in life. I just think it is interesting that we all seem to want to be happy but think that the only way to be happy is to make a lot of money, even if you are miserable while doing it, so that we can have a few weeks vacation every year to actually be happy.

conservatism at its worst

Conservatism has its basis in a bunch of monarchs wanting to stabilize their own personal power with little to no regard about what is best for the people. Yes, they may consider what is best for the survival of the country, but rarely are the people, such as peasants and the suppressed, ever considered. In the time surrounding the Congress of Vienna and the "restoration" of Europe, Europe was witness to many land hungry rulers concerned more with legacy than anything else. In both the Spain and the Italian Peninsula, "restored monarchs who had pledged to respect constitutional reforms abandoned their promises, attempting to squelch elections and reinstate privileges"(713). Furthermore, Ferdinand of Spain went so far as to publicly execute hundreds of revolutionaries in the name of international stability. Stability, for these monarchs, meant stability of their power, not necessarily of the lives of the people over whom they ruled.
What is possibly most unsettling, though, is that these conservative monarchs could not even follow their own principles, which is seen in the attitudes they held and the actions they took when considering Greek war for independence. Even though this was a revolt from the established power of the Ottoman Turks, the major European powers were wiling to over look that because they could all personally benefit from siding with the Greeks. The Europeans powers were more concerned with defeating the Turks, a long time enemy, than with actually serving the people of Greece. They only helped them fight the Turks because they saw a chance to greatly diminish the Turks' empire. Thus, they went against their usual disdain of revolution so as to personally benefit, showing a selfishness that has never left Western politics.