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.