Blog #17 - The Fairness of Taxes

In France's "ancien regime", the first (clergy) and second (nobles) estates paid little to no taxes (2% total taxes for the first estate, and 1% for the second) before the French Revolution in 1789.  They also had special privileges and had some influence and power, but the nobles especially were afraid of losing their special place in society. 

The third estate was a varied group of people.  They included middle class bankers, lawyers, merchants and manufacturers.  It also included doctors, journalists and professionals, but the majority of the third estate was made up of rural peasants and urban workers (the poorest) and urban unemployed.  The third estate had few special privileges and had to pay the majority of the taxes (estimated 97% total taxes). 

These inequalities, in addition to France's soaring national debt and the skyrocketing price of food, contributed to the revolution.

In America since 1913, we have had a progressive income tax - those who earn more pay the most.  Back then, only incomes over $4,000 ($86,500 in 2010 dollars) were taxed (which applied to about 5% of the country). 

During World War 2, the middle class really became included in the income tax in order to help pay for the huge price of the war. 

But, the way our tax burden is distributed is much different than pre-revolutionary France. For instance, the lower class, or those who make less than $25-30,000 a year (for a family of four) pay about 5% of total tax amount collected every year by the IRS though they make up 15-20% of the population. 

The American middle class makes up 60-70% of the population and pays around 45% of the total tax amount.  The middle class earns between $30,000 - $200,000 / year. 

An argument for taxes from the Brookings Institute.  Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. has said, "I like paying taxes.  With them I buy civilization."     
The wealthiest 10% of Americans (those who earn over $200,000), because of our progressive tax system, pay about half of the amount collected by the IRS.  That amount (50%), and in fact all of the amounts, have fluctuated depending upon the strength or weakness of the economy. 

Currently, like France in 1789, our American government owes over $12 trillion to foreign investors and future payments to Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare. 

1. Why do you think the French tax system was set up that way? 

2. Do you think our current tax system is fair with the wealthiest Americans paying half of the tax amount collected every year?  Why or why not?

3. What would you do to our tax system today to modify it?  (For instance, do you think our government spends too much money on social services / the military / other stuff?  Would you lower taxes (and forbid it to borrow any money unless in an emergency) to force the government to spend less?  Or, what about a flat tax where everybody pays the same percentage/rate?)    Why? 

150 words minimum total (not 150 words per question).  Due Monday, March 29. 

Blog #16 - Descent into Fascism in the United States?

Could something like Japan, Germany and Italy's descent into fascism happen in America today?

If you remember the circumstances when these three countries fell under fascism's spell, the following was happening in these 3 countries:

1. A major economic depression put amazing stress upon these three countries' economic systems, causing massive unemployment, inflation, and extreme stress upon their banking systems;

2. Weak democracies were unable to meet the demands upon its organization;

3. Strong nationalist feelings helped make the people in their country ready for a leader (Hitler, Mussolini) who would exploit the country for his own personal sake;

4. In each country, a strong military presence - either with generals taking over the gov't. in Japan or the rebuilding of Germany's industry through an increase in military forces - allowed each country to channel their aggression and spread their imperialist demands;

(I may think of some more things between now and Thursday, but let's go with these four for now).

Your questions:
Could these things occur in America? Are these things already occuring in America right now? Why or why not?

150 words minimum. Due Thursday, March 4

Author Sinclair Lewis wrote about this exact scenario in his novel in It Can't Happen Here in 1935. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html Here's a link to the novel online.

Blog#15 - Morality of the Opium Wars

This blog has been one of the hardest to write b/c it seems that wherever I look to for info - books, online sources, etc. - they have pretty much the same stuff. Part of me wonders if this is because few Westerners have written extensively on this subject. Another reason might be that there may be few Chinese sources available to the West given the current nature of China's closed society. If that is the case, maybe what is happening is that when historians write about this subject, they repeat the same info over and over.

The basics of the Opium Wars (1839-42) seem to be that:

1. The British East India Company needed tea, silk, porcelain and other goods from China;


2. China wasn't very interested in Western goods - basically, "thanks, but no thanks."


3. This created an imbalance of trade (or trade deficit) with the British and the Chinese.


*The Chinese were used to being paid in silver from earlier dealings w/ the Spanish and the Portugeuse, but the British were on the gold standard and had to buy their silver from other European countries at an increased price.


4. In order to solve this trade deficit, Britain began importing opium from Indian traders in Calcutta. However, the Chinese emperor in 1729 banned the sale and smoking of opium, so the British had to resort to smuggling it.


5. In the 1760s, the British EIC gained a monopoly over the production and monopoly of opium, cutting out the trader in Calcutta (in essence, paying the Indian farmers to grow it, buying it from them, and then smuggling it into China when purchasing tea and silk).


6. When the Chinese struck back and destroyed EIC warehouses full of opium, the EIC cried foul to the British government who then attacked the Chinese for daring to protect their people from drugs (this last part is my own emphasis / sarcasm).

7. After the Chinese lost this series of battles, they were forced to sign unequal treaties and give up Hong Kong as well.



Here are some of my questions that kept popping up as I read through the material:


1. Why did the British sell opium to the Chinese? Was it just the Chinese or was it the Indians and other SE Asian peoples as well? Were some British addicted as well?


2. Why did the British government go to war with the Chinese when the Chinese were trying to stop this awful trade from addicting their people? Didn't this mean that the British gov't. approve of this trade, and by extension approve of addicting thousands of people to opium?


3. Why couldn't the Chinese stop the British from smuggling in the drug? What were the Chinese officials' roles in allowing or stopping the trade?


4. Was this opium war really a war over getting access to the Chinese markets so that the British (and other Western nations later) could sell their cheap goods? I ask this b/c of the terms of the Treaty of Nanking signed in 1842; the British didn't demand to sell more opium, they asked for access to more ports (including Hong Kong) and better trading rights.


So, when the whole thing is said and done, what can we learn from this? (Pick two of the following questions to answer)


1. Should a government support a company's actions even if it's actions are illegal? Why or why not?


2. Should the British government be responsible today for its actions 170 years ago? Why or why not? It gave Hong Kong back to China at the end of the "100 year lease" in 1997


3. If the British East India Company still existed today, should it be held responsible for its actions? Why or why not? What could be done to it?


4. Can you think of any examples in recent times when a country has gone to war for economic / business reasons? Explain.

200 words, due Tuesday, February 22, 2010.

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm - Asia for Educators: Opium Wars and Foreign Encroachment

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.