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.