Cherokee Women at the Seneca Falls Convention

The female situation in the 1800's was nothing short of depressing.  Women had to conform to some of the most unfair personality and etiquette standards ever, as well as some of the most destructive physical standards ever, with corsets in style and giant intricate dresses being the most preferred fashion.  To top it off, women were made to conform to 4 characteristics of womanhood: piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity to reach their most ideal potential.  Piety had to do with a woman's religious fervor, and involved the perfect female archetype using her loving, righteous mind to curb the sins and indulgences in our society- and one of those was lust.  The sin of lust is where purity makes its appearance, as any true woman would guard her virginity with her life-literally- or else the only form of redemption acceptable enough for a "fallen woman" was to die, for they were now less than human.  Men were exempt from this because they were naturally sex-driven.    Submissiveness was the most "scientifically-backed" of the the virtues, and it essentially taught that women were naturally subservient and inferior to men.  This view of inferiority contributed greatly to the last of the characteristics, domesticity, which created the "public sphere" and the "private sphere", the public sphere was the domain of man; harsh, cold, competitive, and full of temptations that could lead any man astray.  The private sphere was for women, who were supposed to stay in the home, and it was the duty of these frail, "useless but beautiful object(s)" to keep the men from running astray and falling prey to these vices.  It was these 4 characteristics, called "the cult of domesticity" that shaped the female lifestyle in the 1800's.

The Seneca Falls convention was meant to change all that.  In July 1848, a council met to discuss and decide the rights that should be given to women, and their declarations almost mirror another very important document, the Declaration of Independence.    It has some key changes however, for example,  instead of beginning the second line with "we hold these truths...that all men are created equal" the document states that "all men and women are created equal".  The declarations do leave some demands out, and it is easy to become confused as to why some groundbreaking demands are left out.  Women's right to vote is not mentioned at all, only implied, and although may seem strange it is actually rather cunning, because if all demands were put on the forefront, it could lead to a rise in hatred for women's rights, or even worse, a complete denial that they should exist.

One group that is strangely absent from the demands is the delegates of Cherokee descent.  It is understandable that Native Americans would be at the convention, because in their culture, women were equal to if not greater than men in society.  Concepts about husbands taking property instead of sharing it, demonization of divorce, or even the taking of a man's last name (a custom that was actually reversed in most native cultures, as clan placement was matrilinneal)  would be ultimately insane for the Cherokee delegation.  Yet their voices were not heard, because even at the Seneca falls convention the conference was dominated by wealthy whites.

Personally I believe that resolution number 3 is the most important "That woman is man's equal" because it shows that despite any beliefs one may have, you cannot be made to serve your equal, and vice versa.  I belief that on paper this resolution has been accomplished, but the issues themselves have much longer to go before we can reach perfection.  Be we are definitely improving.

U.S. & Turkey vs. Syria & Isis, Can a Compromise be Reached?

The United States and Turkey have never agreed on how to deal with the Syrian crisis.  Turkish representatives feel that Americans are too focused on ISIS stating "The United States is single-mindedly focused on ISIS" which is described by Turkey as "an outgrowth of the [Assad] regime's continued violence against the opposition".  In contrast, The United States believes that Turkey should recognize ISIS as a threat, but also say that the Turkish should equip Syrian rebels with better weapons and offer more financial aid.  

Turkish diplomats are relatively peeved at the lack of progress that the two NATO allies have made towards solving this problem, and has criticized the U.S. for "not willing to bear the burden of removing [Assad] or take any responsibility for the aftermath".  

This concern about the future is not uncalled for, as Turkey's borders are already filled with refugees with no home and the number is growing everyday.  The most widely accepted proposal so far is to establish a "No Fly Zone" over Syria which would hinder bombings as well as curb refugee intake.  Another proposal is a compromise that would involve a controlled "Safe-Zone" in Northern Syria in exchange for U.S. access to Turkish airbases.  Neither proposal has been approved.

The author of the article states his meaning quite well, "If the mutual desire of both countries is to put an end to the crisis in Syria, fighting Assad and ISIS at the same time is essential. However, both administrations need to compromise in order to decide on an effective and agreeable plan of action. Modifications need to be made in Washington's policy on Syria to focus more on fighting the Assad regime, while Turkey must commit its efforts to defeating ISIS." -Abdulrahman Al-Masri


If the United States  still followed the Monroe doctrine of the early 19th century, the crisis would not be as complicated, and this is mainly because it would exist at all.  The old policies establish 3 lasting principles:

1. Separate spheres of influence (you stay in your region, I'll 
stay in mine)
2.  Non­colonization (no dominating/ruling other  countries)
3.  Non­intervention (unless it affects us directly)

Following the first tenet, the US would never become involved with either Turkey or Syria because neither one lies in the Western Hemisphere and neither one is newly independent.

The Second Tenet would be more of a gray area because of Russia's ties with Syria and America's belief in independence, but once again the US is on the opposite side of the world, so following the Monroe doctrine we would never intervene.

Finally the nonintervention without effect on the US would also involve us not getting involved because Syria is not threatening the United States' independence, nor is Russia, or Turkey, so the US would intervene.  If we were still following the Monroe doctrine all we would care about is ISIS.

Al-Masri 0, Abdulrahman. "Is There a Possible Deal on Syria between the US and Turkey?" Middle East Monitor. N.p., 04 Dec. 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2014.

Race and Revolution in Latin America

 

Latin America has been a powerhouse of revolution since it was first conquered by European powers.  The first of these revolutions took place on a small French island named Saint Domingue.  The revolution on this tiny sugar island of Haiti lit the spark of every other major Revolution in the Western Hemisphere.  The main reason that the Haitian Revolution began, and also its reason for success was do to perception of race. 

Haiti was an island of slaves.  Its main exports, sugar and coffee accounted for the majority of European intake of such luxuries, and almost all work was done by slaves.  The "Grand Blancs" or "Big Whites" were the wealthy French landowners that owned the workers, and their abusive nature and refusal to give the slaves basic rights is what caused the rebellion of the oppressed.

The key to the success of the slave rebellion were the races of the parties involved.  Because the Grand Blancs were visibly French, the Haitians new exactly who to kill, and because of their reputation as beasts of Africa, the slaves were highly underestimated.

The Iberian racial system was even more apparent.  After their conquest of the Americas was complete, the Spanish implemented as system known as Las Castas that separated all members of society by race, and which dealt with the individuals parents being the sole deciding factor.

When the Mexican rebellions first broke out, the Mestizos (Half Native, Half European) and Mulattoes (Half African, Half European) fought against the rich Spanish-born rulers of Mexico, also known as Peninsulaires.  The Mexican Revolution was only successful when the Creoles (whites who had been born in the colonies) revolted as well.

In the end, Race in Latin America was both a tool and a weapon, and wielded in the right hands it could be used for or against anyone, and this racial manipulation continues to be used in our world today.  Hopefully however, we don't have an entire Hemisphere rebelling against us.

Las Castas

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CastaSystemVirreinato.JPG

What should people in power do when their power is threatened?

The question above has been asked and answered throughout history, with every response being different, it is apparent that the answer must change over time. But in 1814, as the Napoleonic conquests began to reach their downfall, the congress of Vienna was determined to discover which answer would last for the longest time.  Eventually the answer came to them, to staying in power, was a balance of current power among all the nations.  This balance of power would insure that each great power would have nearly equal claims and shares over Europe, so that any nation that tried to grab power would be snuffed out by equally powerful nations that wanted to keep their opponents in check.  The congress of Vienna saw the formation of the German confederation, more territory taken from France to Austria and Russia, the formation of the Netherlands, and the returning or ceding of almost all captured French territory to other European powers.  By giving more territory to Austria, the already bloated Russian Empire could be guarded against, the Netherlands protected invasions of Scandinavia, and the German confederation led to a more unified form of the Holy Roman Empire.
In my own opinion, I believe that under the current circumstances at the time, the balance put forward was a wonderful way to end the conflict with power still unmatched.  The only thing I would change would be greater safeguards against the Russian and Ottoman Empires, but that's another story for another day...

http://fc.greensboroday.org/~ldrewicz/APEuro

Napoleon's Impact on Europe

Napoleon Bonaparte was a colossus of a combatant that conquered almost all of Europe under the new French flag, and a man who is known across the world as both a ruthless conqueror and a brilliant leader.  Napoleon, who brought an end to the monarchical traditions of the western powers, influenced  not only Europe, but the entire world.

Napoleon was a product of revolution.  His rise to power began as he commanded highly successful artillery units during the rebellion of the people against the French government.  After the reign of terror, the French wanted someone powerful, but also someone who wouldn't kill everyone who spoke out against him.  Napoleon was perfect for the job.

The original plan was that Napoleon would be used to expand French borders, but as shrewd as he was, Napoleon was able to declare himself emperor and dispose of the directory that planned to use him for their own advantage.  Napoleon strengthened the French economy by encouraging business and growth, building canals, roads, and schools.  This allowed for the lower classes to have more access to education as well as a better chance to advance in the world.

Napoleon established a meritocracy, rewarding skills and talents rather than status and social class, which allowed people of all groups and sects to become who they wanted to be as long as they were good at it, and began a new way of thinking that focused more on what someone did than what family they came from.

Napoleon's impact on Europe and the American system flourishing, countries all over the world began to embrace new ways of thinking.  Some were violent, disposing of the old government and placing a new one in its place, and others were peaceful, and advocated for change without necessarily destroying the government.  Their successes and failures are why the world looks the way it does today, and why Napoleon's impact on Europe affected the whole world.

The Candy Experiment

Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism are three very tricky things.  They spark many political debates, create arguments, and can even start wars.  The terms themselves can be very difficult to explain without an accurate demonstration.  Fortunately, there are many ways to perform such an experiment, one of the easiest being a simple game involving candy.  The authoritative figure known as "The Government" begins the game by handing out candies to each participant, but the amounts of each must be different to demonstrate economic disparity.  The players will then proceed as they see fit.  If they choose, they may play a short decision game like rock-paper-scissors to decide whether or not they gain or lose a candy.  In this way, they are demonstrating trade and economic competition.  Players may also steal, provided they are not caught by the government, and if candies are won they cannot be returned unless their current owner deems it necessary.  This system of competition, trade, and advancement/loss demonstrates capitalism.  Capitalism is generally described as people being born into a certain amount of money, and then through hard work (or lack thereof) they may either advance or retreat on the fields of success.  Capitalism however, requires a lower class to profit from, and if there is no lower class and everyone makes the same no matter what, then there is no competition and Socialism becomes the dominant system.  To demonstrate socialism, the government collects all the candy from all who have it regardless of the amount the currently possess. The government then redistributes the candy in equal amounts to everybody in the room, and because the government is in control, no trading takes place.  From here the game may diverge into one of two paths: it may revert back to Capitalism and participants may try to take candy again and build themselves up, or a non-government form of Socialism will take hold, known as Communism.  If the players decide to stay where they are and be content with the equal amount of candy that they have, then they themselves forbid competition, and as such they regulate their own government of a classless society.  There is one flaw in the game however, and that is that there is no analog for progress, and in a society where everything is guaranteed, there is no incentive to work.  Therefore Communism/Socialism are unreliable long term systems because progress would not take place.

For a better understanding, please consider the following:  In a communist society, three farmers are working in a shared field.  At the end of the harvest, each farmer gets 33% of the crops grown for themselves regardless of work output.  One day after receiving his crops, one of the farmers decides to take a nap in the barn while the other farmers work.  He continues this behavior everyday until harvest time, and then proceeds to take his third of the crops.  After seeing this, one of the other farmers decides that the first farmer is not playing fair, and decides that if he isn't going to work, then neither is she.  The final farmer realizes that he must work to benefit the masses and does all the work while still taking only his 33% share.  Finally, a terrible winter comes and kills the stalwart farmer in the field, and then decimates the crops.  The two farmers in the barn then starve because they do not have the capacity to work in the farm without a third because they are not as hard-working as their deceased comrade, and in the end all the farmers die.  Perhaps the answer does not lie in a purely capitalist ideology either, but rather in a combination of many that will reach a common consensus that will benefit us all.  That is, until a new revolutionary system comes along.

Letter from a Farmer: Taking Sides in the War on Technology

"Ned Ludd" in women's clothing.

The term "Luddite" is used throughout the modern world, used when the target of the name-calling is ignorant or against technology. This use of the name is incorrect, because the Luddites themselves were not technology-hating neanderthals (another illogical slur) but rather playful cross-dressers who wanted better treatment of the working man.  The Luddite movement appeared in Nottinghamshire, England around 1811 of the Industrial Revolution, and the group received their name from a fictional character named Ned Ludd who supposedly worked at a factory in which he was reprimanded for doing an unsatisfactory job.  Ned rose up against his superiors and vowed to fight for the workers.  The Luddites gained their image as machine-haters when they attacked a factory that had fired hundreds of weavers and replaced them with mechanized looms, and the Luddites smashed the new machinery to make a point about how the factories were taking jobs away from people who needed them.  Fearing the sweetest plum of their economy would collapse, the English sent in regiments of troops to break up the movement, and after the British started killing off the activists the Luddites slowly began to fall back into line.  But as the embodiment of British governance Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors"  and all that remained of the crushed Luddite movement was the English propaganda, which has forever branded the Luddites as technology-hating hypocrites.  Below is the theoretical interpretation of the Luddite actions through the eyes of an English farmer living in the area.  By writing in this style, we will attempt to see the common man's perspective of the Luddite movement and how it functioned.

Dear Cousin Abigail,

I hope this letter finds you well.  The last I wrote to you I had just sent Elizabeth off to one of the new mills appearing all over our two countries.  She writes often, but I get the feeling that your father was right all along, and that she should never have gone to work in one of those houses of lies.  She does send money home, and I can't complain about that, what with the plantations in America selling their crops to the markets.  It doesn't help me much that those crazed weavers have been stirring up trouble again, thank god the King finally sent in the regiments.  I feel as if they are in right, although I can't say I agree with their methods.  They actually smashed a line of machines at the mill in Yorkshire, and my new wife Emily does not necessarily approve of the men dressed in gowns and ladies skirts; perhaps she fears they'll come for her clothes next.  I believe i'll ask Eliza to come home.  She misses her brothers and her horse, and I could use an extra hand now that John is married off.  I don't feel comfortable with her around those odd men with clothes, and I don't think I want her around with the guns going off.  What do you think?

                                                                                                                    -William