Blog #14 - Was Tsar Nicolas II the Wrong Man for the Time?

In our article about Tsar Nicholas II, the last Russian tsar, we discussed the article's title of whether he was the wrong man for the time (the original Newsweek article).

Some of the class thought that Nicholas was the wrong man for the time b/c:

1. He wasn't very assertive or a strong leader without the confidence or responsibility needed of a tsar - he knew he was going to be tsar eventually, so he should have been learning how to be one even if his father didn't want to teach him;

2. He wasn't active enough during his reign (1894-1917) to stop the swirling forces of modernism nor did he make any real lasting changes for the Russian people - the Duma wasn't a true assembly;

3. Nicholas thought that the bad stuff that happened to him - battle losses, bad advice, deaths in the family, etc. - was God's will, and that we saw in our video, "The Last of the Czars," that he compared himself to Job, God's true believer who endured great suffering.

Others felt that Nicholas wasn't the wrong man for the time (and wondered if anybody could have saved the Russian empire at that time):

1. When he took over the throne in 1894 after his father's untimely death, he was unprepared (mainly b/c his father, Alexander III, thought Nicholas was too soft 2);

2. He and his family were murdered in July 1918 and could not help prevent the Bolsheviks from winning the civil war (as preposterous as it sounds, biographer Robert Massie seems to blame Nicholas for Nazism and WW2, the Cold War and its hot wars like Korea and Vietnam in the last paragraph of his Newsweek essay - see below):

After their murder, the Russian Revolution continued its brutal course. Then
came the rise of Nazism in Germany, the second world war, the subsequent
expansion of communism over half of the globe, the cold war and all its little
hot wars. In the end, it was the destruction of Nicholas, a ruler unable to cope
with modern times, that led to some of the decisive political events--and worst
horrors--of a bloody century (Robert Massie, "The Wrong Man for the Time", Newsweek, July 20, 1998).

3. Nicholas inherited an angry, divided and backwards country from his father, and he wasn't a miracle worker;

4. The tsar's empire (and maybe all empires in general) were old fashioned, and the forces of history like nationalism were tearing it apart;

5. By 1917, the Russian people were at the breaking point w/ all of the food shortages, crushed revolts and failed war effort - it was just a matter of time before a revolution occurred.

Tell me your opinion in 150 words by Monday, February 8.

Sources:
1. A review of Robert Massie's book, Nicholas and Alexandra (2000).

2. Link to info on Nicholas II: http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Nicholas_II_of_Russia

3. Link to Alexander Palace: http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/index.html

4. Detailed timeline for 1917's Russian Revolution: http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/russianrev.html

Blog #13 - Choose one of these questions

With this imperialism / Great War unit, I decided to have you make up your own higher order thinking questions.


1. Why didn't Vicar tell the other guys (Trench, Willoughby, Jack) that he thought he saw Harry ride off after a spy?


2. Why would soldiers countinue to fight after they've what horror and damage that war can do? - Karen, Maddie, Eric


3. Why did King Leopold mistreat the people of the Congo if that might cause a rebellion? - Braxton


4. Why didn't any of the soldiers in the Great War rebel earlier because of the awful living conditions?

5. Do you think Vicar thought it was all right to kill a man if he prayed to God while doing it? -Kelly

6. Do you think there was a deeper meaning behind why Ethne decided to marry Jack? Maybe she felt bad for him becuase he was blind? Or maybe he was a last resort because Harry was surely gone by then? - Kelly

7. What was your first impression of shell shock? Did you think it was this severe? What were your reactions to it? Do you think stuff like this still happens today and did you ever know about such a thing until now? - Jithmi, Larry G., Maddie

8. Towards the end of Four Feathers, Jack and Ethne are outside talking by a carriage after Harry's visit to his house. It is thought that Jack broke up with Ethne at that point. Why would he decide to do that? - Nona

9. What influence do you think Siegfried Sassoon had on Wilfred Owen and his writing? Do you think Sassoon was liked or disliked by generals? Why? - Jithmi

10. What do you think America should have done during the Armenian Genocide in 1915? Was what they did a good response or could it have been better? Why? - Reanna

11. What would happen if the Turks were to take responsibility for the Armenian Genocide? - Andrea K.

12. Why would the British continue to drop so many shells at the Battle of the Somme when they had made so little progress? - Andrea K.

13. Why were nations like Germany so obsessed with gaining land in Europe when they already had overseas colonies in Africa? Did being a smaller nation have something to do with this? - Larry G.

14. Why couldn't soldiers speak their minds about how the war was going without getting punished? - Karen DLR

15. Why did soldiers like Sassoon go back to the war after being injured? - Maddie

16. Why do you think, even after the war had begun, secret agreements were being made, just like there had been at the beginning when countries tried to gain allies? - Lizzie

17. What do you think would of happened if America had been involved in World War 1 from the start, instead of trying to stay out of it? Do you think peace would of come faster? Or did America’s timing have to do more with it than the country itself? - Lizzie

18. Why might some countries be in favor for the treaties made during World War I and why might some countries be against them? - Emily H.

19. Why do you think that Serbia would choose to not agree to all the demands that Austria sent them, even if it meant avoiding a war and also saving lives and resources? - Emily H.

20. Why was the idea of imperialism so more influential then the idea of Enlightenment? - Eric

21. “ You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye,
who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where the youth and laughter go.” –Siegfried Sassoon, “Suicide in the Trenches”.
What do you think Siegfried poem has to say about the war in this poem? Why? - Alesha

22. Even though women couldn’t fight in the Great War, do you think women are valuable as soldiers now? Support your answer. - Alesha

23.

Please pick one of the questions above (that isn't your own) and answer it to the best of your ability in 150 words. Due Friday, Jan. 29, 2010.

Blog 12 - Armenian Genocide and Turkey's continual denial

We've been reading about the Armenian genocide and Turkey's continual denial of their complicity in that genocide. The Ottoman government, at war with Russia at the time, saw the Armenians as an internal threat, spies, and sabotuers. Once the majority of the Armenians were exiled to Syria or killed by the end of 1915, the Young Turk officials began their official denials.

Some of the major issues at stake (BBC Online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6045182.stm):

1. The number of Armenians killed: Armenians say that 1.5 million had perished in the sands of Syria while the Turks say that only 300,000 died between 1915-1923.

2. Were the killings systematic? Many governments, historians and the Armenians believe that the massacres were part of an organized plot done by the Turkish government during WW1, however, Turkey contends that many Muslims died in the "turmoil of war" as well.

3. The trials after WW1 ended up with one Turkish official hanged and another thrown in jail, but the big 3 Young Turks tried "in absentia" - not present -since they had run away to Germany.

For the U.S.'s part, we read about Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's efforts to persuade President Wilson to pressure the Ottomans/Young Turks to end the massacres or to get the Germans to stop the Turks. Wilson would do neither. In 1916, both the House and Senate passed resolutions saying that they were disturbed by the reports of mass Armenian killings and wanted to have a day where Americans should show their solidarity with the Armenian people and work to raise relief funds. Of course, in America, 1916 was an election year, and in a tough economy, Wilson campaigned to keep America out of that European mess.

At least 20 countries around the world since this time period have passed resolutions to express sorrow and sympathy (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Russia and Uruguay), held prayer days and have officially recognized the Armenian genocide, yet America hasn't. In 1984, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution that called for the President to recognize a National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man with specific reference to the Armenian genocide. The day was April 24th, the day that the Turkish gov't. arrested 50 Armenian intellectuals and leaders who were then later executed - a day that the Armenians recognize as the offical start of the Armenian genocide.

In recent years, Turkey has denied the U.S. any use of its bases for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Also, Turkey has urged the U.S. gov't. to block a Congressional vote in 2007 that would recognize the Armenian genocide, and so the House Foreign Relations Committee stalled the bill.

So, why would Turkey continue to deny responsibility for the genocide? 150 words minimum. Due Monday, January 25.

Read the websites at the bottom of this Wikipedia page for links to pages that explain Turkey's point of view.

Copy of the genocide map from the Armenian National Institute: http://www.armenian-genocide.org/map-full.html

Blog #11 - Four Feathers - Reaction / Question

Pick one of the following questions and answer it by Friday, 1/15/10.

150 words minimum.

1. Who was the more genuine friend to Harry: Abou, Vicar or Jack? Before you answer, consider:

- Abou saved Jack in the desert when he lost his camel and ran out of water, and he also got him out of the Omdurman prison.

- Vicar was the only one of Harry's mates who recognized him (2x!) when Harry had come to Sudan, plus he didn't send Harry a feather and is an all-around good guy.

- Jack was the only friend who defended Harry when the charges of cowardice started flying around at the beginning of the movie, and I think he gave up his chance to marry the love of his life (Ethne) so that his friend would be happy.

2. What do you think is the greater fear as a soldier in war - the fear of dying or the fear of having to kill another person? Why? Which do you think was what Harry suffered from? Why?

3. How would this story have been different if it was told from Abou's point of view? We don't know much about his background, family, or life before "God put Harry in his path." Make some backstory up for Abou.

4. "You British walk the land too proudly." Give a few examples from the film where the characters acted just a bit too proud. Why do you think they have this swagger?

###There may be more questions later tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks.

Blog #10 - White King, Red Rubber, Black Death

So far, you guys have studied how Africa had grown as a multi-ethnic continent with different tribes and thousands of languages before the Europeans came to become the crossroads for trade and commerce like it is today.


The northern African countries, the ones that have had the most interaction with Europe (good and bad) like Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt are more economically advanced than their sub-Saharan brethren. Those countries that lie South of the Equator are the ones that we will focus on for most of our imperialism unit in Chapter 24 and revisit before the end of the semester.


The British and the French were the two biggest colonizers of sub-Saharan Africa, but the Belgians, Germans, Dutch and Portuguese also carved up the continent after 1800. This period is known as the "new imperialism" - as if the time period of slavery when up to possibly 20 million Africans were stolen from the continent and shipped over to the Americas was somehow "old" imperialism and this was more "enlightened" because the Euros didn't sell humans and instead sold the resources? Yeah, right.


Some of the worst abuses of Africans were done by the Belgians in the resource-rich Congo. The Belgians extracted tons of rubber (this is where the title of our blog comes from), copper and ivory. Those villages who didn't harvest enough rubber would have children or sometimes women lose a hand. This was when the king himself, Leopold II, owned the Congo, until 1908 when the outrages over such treatment forced him to give it up. To quote a BBC documentary with the same name as our blog, "Until Adolf Hitler arrived on the scene, the European standard cruelty was set by a king."

Link to King Leopold's genocide: http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/king-leopold-ii-congo
A BBC news link that traces the current state of the region to the mess from the 19th Century: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3516965.stm

One thing that is included in your history book that was never included in the stuff that I learned was info from the Africans' points of view. The best examples are in Ch. 24, sec. 2, on p. 754-5 and p. 759-761. I had seen a movie about Shaka Zulu but it really was more about the brave whites who had to take on the Zulus in the scary war in southern Africans. I never got to learn the "other side" of the story or the Africans' side of the story unless I watched Roots which came out when I was 9 (in 1977, I think) or read stuff on my own.

As Americans, we can't claim any kind of moral superiority over the Europeans because of the U.S.'s genocidal policies enacted towards our Native Americans.

Your questions:
1. Why did Europeans colonize Africa in the 1800s?
2. Why do you think America stayed away from Africa and Asia during the 19th Century?
3. Do you think that the current economic and political state that many sub-Saharan countries are in today might have anything to do with their previous colonization? Why or why not?

200 words minimum. Due Wednesday, January 13.

Blog #9 - If France Sneezes, Europe Catches a Cold

From what we saw in Chapter 20 (and even earlier with the French Revolution), France was incredibly influential in politics during the 19th Century not only in Europe but also in Latin America as well. Though the 26 years of Revolution and Napoleonic Rule (1789-1815) had destroyed the country and its economy, the ideas of natural rights (life, liberty and property) and democracy were ones that caught fire across the world.

We saw how European dictators / monarchs tried to re-establish the Old Order with the Congress of Vienna in 1816 and fix the problems that Napoleon had created (by overthrowing the old stodgy system that wouldn't change - though the ironic thing was that Napoleon (painting at the left) had become an Emperor himself and put all of the power of the French government in his own hands).

My questions for you:

If you were a monarch of old Europe at this time (mid 19th Century) and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, which of the following would you do and why?

1. Would you crush these revolts in your empire so as to not let them not occur again?

2. Would you listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of your power or empire's resources?

3. Would you completely agree to all of the revolutionaries' requests and allow their region to become semi-independent?

4. Would you examine the geography of the rebellious region and let them go if they weren't important or keep them if they were but let them have some form of liberties to make them happy (think Bismarck and realpolitik)?

Pick one of the four options and explain why you chose your option.

150 words minimum, due Tuesday, January 5th.

Blog #8 - How has life changed for your interviewee?

This is your chance to conduct an oral history interview and compare it with the time period that we're studying in Europe. Between 1760 and 1850, Britain saw unparalleled economic growth with new technologies, expanded business opportunities, and improved transportation and communication. Men accumulated vast fortunes yet thousands upon thousands went hungry and lived in abysmally awful conditions. The poor were left to struggle for survival and either fight to live or die. Thinkers like Malthus and Ricardo discouraged handouts b/c - as they thought - the handouts would artificially give the poor a helping hand in the survival of the fittest. New religions even emerged to focus workers' anger and energy on the after life and doing good deeds in the present - the message being that you can't change your situation, so make peace with it. Your reward will come later.



America had its own Industrial Revolution, first between 1800 - 1850, and then again, a massive explosion after the Civil War in which the U.S. surpassed all other industrialized nations in the output of manufactured goods (1865-1900). Similar things happened: workers attempted to unionize on a large scale but failed; large numbers of workers flocked to cities and lived in overcrowded tenements; and the U.S. had their own version of Malthus and Ricardo in an aptly named concept called social Darwinism.



In the 20th Century, only the World Wars interrupted the flow of industrial and technological progress. For instance, my grandmother, born in 1911 only a few years after the Wright Brothers had perfected the plane, could now fly around the world at the end of the century. Also at the end of the century, all homes had central plumbing and heating, electricity and phones - luxuries that only the wealthy could afford in 1911. In 2000, cell phones were popular and cheap. You could send an image on a piece of paper from one part of the world to the other with just a phone call instead of using the slower mail. Media had also changed. Instead of just getting the news from the newspaper, you could get it online, on the radio and on the TV.


Your question:
How has 1. technology, 2. jobs and economy, 3. religion, 4. entertainment, 5. politics, 6. news media, 7. communications and 8. travel changed since your interviewee was young (or about your age)?

Your entry should be around 200 words ( 50 words per choice b/c you're required to pick a minimum of 4 of the 8 topics to write about for your blog post) and will be due Tuesday, Dec. 15th.

Blog #7 - What obligations do wealthy nations have?

"Coketown... was a town of red brick, or of brick that would have been red if the smoke and ashes had allowed it; but as matters stood, it was a town of unnatural red and black like the painted face of a savage. It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever, and never got uncoiled. It had a black canal in it, and a river that ran purple with ill-smelling dye, and vast piles of building full of windows where there was a rattling and a trembling all day long, and where the piston of the steam-engine worked monotonously up and down, like the head of an elephant in a state of melancholy madness. It contained several large streets all very like one another, and many small streets still more like one another, inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and to-morrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next."

Charles Dickens, Hard Times.


As we're studying the social impact of the industrial revolution in Europe, the chapter brings up some interesting ideas about the social impact of the huge expansion of industry upon a rural society. Among the major things that happened in Britain between 1760 and the mid 1850s were:


1. Many farmers were kicked off the land they'd farmed for generations, so they moved to the cities to find jobs where living conditions were horrid;

2. Many jobs were dangerous, dehumanizing and boring - no longer was there any variety with regards to the seasons or weather, changes to due to chance or innovation, but just repetition;

3. In some of the poorest places in Britain, children as young as 5 worked in mines and other dangerous places;

4. Wages were low because much of the profit was reinvested by the owners / managers into newer and improved machines (which could, in the foreseeable future, put the same workers out of work);

5. Since power sources were continually improved (but Britain had practically used up all of its charcoal - trees), coal-burning engines led to pollution which covered the land, air and water.

The British aristocracy didn't feel obligated to help the poor, and so many people fell through the cracks. When America, France, Germany and other European countries industrialized, they made many of the same mistakes that Britain had done. Could they have benefited from Great Britain's wisdom and experience as the leader of the industrial revolution?

As one of the world's leaders in industry and technology, the United States and many of the western nations can help China and India benefit from their experience. But should they? Are they obligated to do so? Why? Here's a few questions to consider when answering this question:

1. What are the benefits from helping out China and India install greener energy sources (than we had used when we industrialized 50-100 years ago) compared to not helping them out? Each country has 4-5x the population of the U.S. which equals that many more consumers, polluters, energy consumers, etc. The world is already running out of oil...

2. Why should we help the competition? Both countries can each produce more engineers and doctors in one year than the U.S. can in ten just based on the size of the population. Plus, American companies outsource work to India, so we want to help them be better because...?

3. Can the United States continue to risk its financial and military security by being so dependent on foreign oil (specifically going to war in the Middle East to protect the biggest source of the stuff in the world)? On the surface, this might not seem like it deals with China, India and other developing nations, but we're all competing for the same energy sources. Importing so much oil from this region forces us to make hard choices about our future. Can we continue to risk American lives b/c we haven't developed alternative fuel sources yet?

4. What happens if either of these countries develops a new source of energy first (much like the steam engine was invented back in the 1720s and perfected in the 1760s by James Watt)? Would they be willing to share or sell it if we had been stingy? Would the western nations be left out of the new revolution in green technology while China or India or both leapfrog ahead of us?

5. What is the moral thing to do in this case? Or, in other words, what is the right thing to do? For the sake of the planet's health, what should be done?

Use at least 3 of these questions to help you answer the "should wealthy nations feel obligated to help out other nations who haven't industrialized yet?" concept.

150 words minimum due Monday, December 7th.