Modern Foreign Policy and The Monroe Doctrine

    

    The Monroe Doctrine, which for many years served as an important guideline for American Foreign Policy, is still occasionally followed by our government with foreign issues and relations  today, but most of the time different methods are used. One of our main foreign policy problems that has existed within in the last week is the Nuclear Deal slip with Iran. A newspaper article written by David E. Sanger, Michael R. Gordon and Peter Baker, entitled A Nuclear Deal for U.S. and Iran Slips Away Again explains the situation, how similar ones have affected our country over the years, and our current tactics for tackling the issue.

     A day of deal-making in attempt to push back Tehran’s nuclear program recently occurred between secretary of state John Kerry, and the opposing Iranian representative in Oman. America had been waiting many years for a compromise to be made on this subject, but foreign minister Mohammad Java Zarif seemed to have no intentions of compromise during this meeting. Kerry became enraged when discovering Zarif had nothing new or helpful to offer. Kerry had no desire to leave without a deal that would prevent Iran from producing enough fuel for making a bomb within the next year. Further attempts of success only led to argument, and nothing was arranged that day. The solution deadline came around, and no last-minute deals were made; only the decision to extend the deadline seven months. According to the article, the fact that both men were so passionately engaged in their discussion led many people to the conclusion that if the final decision in making a deal had been left to them, it would have been made rather than the choice to waste another seven months. If they had the ability to make any arrangement of sorts, they would have found a way, however, Zarif had Iran’s supreme ruler’s power hanging over him while Kerry faced the chance of making president Obama appear weak, and Israel claiming the deal a poor one.  The deal that could potentially solve so many conflicts between the U.S and the middle east has been out of Obama’s reach for the duration of his presidency. It was a big step just for Zarif and Kerry first began negotiating. Last November it was said that Iran’s nuclear activity would be on pause in exchange for lifted sanctions. Unfortunately, what the U.S was being told by Zarif was not what Iran was revealing to the public.  Zarif stated that everything was indeed on pause but no dismantling took place, leaving the U.S a bit uneasy. Exchanges continued to occur, since Americans were demanding an answer, but Iran would only agree to making a deal after midterm elections. The offer from the U.S was to limit Iran’s number of centrifuges to 1500, while a side-deal with Russia was up in the air with Iran anyway, meaning they could eventually have up to 4500. Iran refused this, and no deal was made at all. Nuclear negotiations although seriously important, appear to also be very challenging to have take place with fair and desirable results.

    The three lasting principles of the Monroe Doctrine are separate spheres of influence, non-colonization, and non-intervention. If the U.S were to still follow these principles today, the approach on nuclear talks with Iran may be a bit different. A long time ago , America may have just left Iran warnings, telling Iran that as long as they stay away we’ll stay away too.; no negotiations at all. Also, the negotiations seem to go against non-intervention, since Iran building their nuclear program technically isn’t a direct threat to America. Even if it was a direct threat, the U.S would have reacted differently.  We might been less cautious about President Obama’s international reputation and demanded a deal, or simply took straight action in Iran. The nuclear talks are a bit contradictory in the media and some seem to believe that a deal should have absolutely been made. Today, we have clearly changed our foreign policy quite a bit over the years; was it for better or for worse?

Bibliography: Sanger, David, Michael Gordon, and Peter Baker. "A Nuclear Deal for U.S. and Iran Slips Away Again." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/world/middleeast/nuclear-deal-again-eludes-us-and-iran-.html?_r=0.

Race and Identity in Gran Colombia and Modern Day U. S.

     Race and identity have throughout time affected mankind through forms of both isolation and unity, gradually creating a place of diverse cultures all bound together by a single planet. Gran Columbia's history of searching for independence is a great example of the impact that race and identity can have on national identity and politics.

     Venezuelan Simón Bolívar was the base of Gran Columbia's successes when attempting to achieve independence from Spain.  His first act of rebellion was in 1810 as an officer in Carcas, where he was a part of the conspiracy that expelled the Spanish governor of Venezuela. In 1811 a national assembly of Carcas declares independence for Venezuela which is only to be reversed by the Spanish military a year later. Bolívar becomes known as the liberator in years to come for his dedication to the rebellion. Even after many extreme failures he always seemed to bound back. In 1819 the Spanish army surrenders in an engagement at Boyacá. Success is increasing day by day and by June if 1821 Bolívar  is able to win a battle at Carabo and in may 1822 Antonio José de Sucre is able to bring about another rebel victory at Pichincha. The Republica de Columbia is freed. Keeping Gran Columbia unified, however, is difficult  and eventually Ecuador and Venezuela are no longer a part of it. By being so separate from their mother country, Gran Columbia had become their own ethnicity, with a completely different culture from Spain. They couldn’t stand to be ruled by these people any longer. Race was a huge political factor to the people of Gran Columbia, since maintaining their true identity required a revolution, and changing their system completely. Race change seemed to go hand with political change and national identity change for Gran Colombia

     The public response to the shooting of Ferguson resident Michael Brown  serves as an example of how race and identity continues to impact the world despite it being a couple hundred years since Gran Colombia's journey to freedom.  Situations involving the boys death are explained in Michael brown shooting: Ferguson Grand Jury does not indict Officer Darren Wilson. The case as explained in the article was evidently a huge deal to the whole country, but more so to the city it took place in which faced many arrests and riots. People were sure that Michael Brown was killed as opposed to other forms of punishment, because of the color of his skin. They were outraged to learn that Officer Wilson would not face criminal charges for what many call murder rather than self defense. Today, race continues to affect us just in different ways. People are still fighting to make sure that racial justice is served. Although we have found peace and acceptance of our diversity, and we have many races under one nation, ridding ourselves of all racial disagreements is nearly impossible. In my opinion, the evidence does seem to show that regardless of Michael’s skin color, he would’ve had to be killed by Wilson who was in need of self-defense. However, no matter what side of the argument you appeal to, the situation shows how race still impacts our national identity. Either because Wilson tried to kill a boy thinking his race was inferior or because people assumed he did so. Both suggest different cultures and ways to be among different races existing under our one nation. Politics were affected; considering our president was forced to be involved with the case. Politics still involve ridding ourselves of racism.

      Race and identity have proved to be a big part of how a nation and politics are defined for hundreds of years, and although this has decreased a lot especially in the United states, the statement still holds true today.


Bibliography: Sneed, Tierney. "Darren Wilson Not Indicted in Michael Brown's Death." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/24/michael-brown-shooter-darren-wilson-not-indicted-by-grand-jury>.

Establishing Fair Power

After the seemingly endless prosperity of the Napoleonic empire was finally crushed under a group of allied forces, Europe was left with some major decision making to do in order to clean up the mess that the French emperor had left behind. With intentions to provide peace and fairness to their continent, representatives from several countries discussed significant issues like how the map of Europe should be redrawn, who will be established as France’s new leader, and how to prevent rebellion within countries in the future. The meeting in which these discussions took place was named “The Congress of Vienna.” The three previously mentioned issues are ones that we looked at in our history course. We were able to answer the question: What should people in power do when their power is threatened, based on what the congress and Austrian prince Metternich decided to do to solve the problems, as well as our own opinions on the situations.

       When addressing the issue of how to reestablish European borders, Metternich and the participants at the Congress of Vienna decided to then forth maintain a balance of power. Maintaining a balance of power means that no one country can dominate the others. The boundary changes made by Napoleon’s empire were reversed. France’s boundaries became exactly what they were before Napoleon’s conquests, and Prussia was enlarged so that France was surrounded by stronger forces. The Netherlands were also created to secure French borders, and as a repayment for faced difficulties during the empire's reign of success, Russia and Austria received more territory. The powers of Europe became distributed to bring about peace, and make complete domination highly unlikely.

The people of the Congress seem to have chosen the best possible solution to ease their territory concerns. By surrounding France with newly strengthened nations, an attack from them would be made nearly impossible. France wouldn’t be ready to overtake their neighbors, and Prussia and the kingdom of The Netherlands could handle any attempts at doing so. Russia and Austria’s enlargement created even more protection from future rebellion. These boundaries made for a continent that would not experience any major overtaking, but still ensure independent nations the right and possibility to fairly expand themselves. Constructing Europe this way was the right choice because it limited chaos as much as possible, and it did lead to very few issues in the near future. Putting the boundaries back to the way they were would have led to more revolutions, and equalizing territories would have led to just as many, since countries would want to keep their own earned success. Rearranging by nationality would have led to the downfall of certain areas and the rising of others, since some nationalities hadn't had their own land to reign before and wouldn’t be ready to take on the responsibility. In certain circumstances I do believe that powerful beings should be willing to sacrifice some of their power. Power should not be equalized between countries; just balanced so that one does not have enough to dominate. If the powerful possess enough to dominate, they should be willing to make a sacrifice not only to save others but to save themselves, because as seen by Napoleon’s story, destruction will only come back around to those who cause it, and extreme power is never everlasting.

Link to Map: https://thefrenchrevolution11.wikispaces.com/The+Congress+of+Vienna

Napoleon's Influence on 19th Century Europe

    Napoleon Bonaparte’s actions performed within the French military released a much bigger impact on the world than expected. He constructed an empire that consisted of almost every European country, which of course led to several political changes and influences throughout the continent.  France was completely transformed into a dominant war-seeking force. Napoleon had logical, intelligent, and untouchable war tactics, that he used while in command of France, bringing them to complete prosperity in terms of government in relation to other countries. Napoleon rid of the Directory to come to absolute rule without even putting up a fight; all members resigned when they learned of his plans. Egypt, when invaded got a complete reorganization of government by Napoleon, and he established the Institute of Egypt. The rest of Napoleon’s empire experienced changes on varying political levels; the main difference of course being their new government ruler.

   
      Napoleon's deeds and actions affected Europe also in a social aspect. He commanded the armies of France to take away nobility and serfdom titles altogether and the clergy was stripped of their excessive power. Meritocracy was established; making it so social classes mattered very little, and people were from then on rewarded on skill level rather than class. Europe become socially free, and more fair in status under French authority.

     Along with having experienced impacts on a social and political level, Napoleon's rule caused Europe be affected economically. In order to make the European economy thrive, he took control of prices. He made sure that constructions of roads and canals occurred and that industry was encouraged and improved. France specifically was economically influenced by Napoleon’s ideas, and because of him, the Bank of France was built, and their budget became better balanced. Italy on the other hand was influenced negatively at an economic standpoint, since Napoleon often stole artwork and money from them during his home-country’s revolution. 19th century economy was made overall made reasonably stable.

    Napoleon did the unthinkable by conquering so much in such a small sector of time, and the influences he had on Europe as Emperor caused him to be remembered as an important historical figure.

Analyzing Economic Structures

In history class everyone participated in a starburst experiment. Most students received three starbursts, however, occasionally someone would get ten. After, we all went around playing rock paper scissors; winner receives a piece of the losers candy. Our teacher supervised, and told us to play fairly and only take candy when winning a game. The rules were not enforced much, and it was chaos. People ended up pushing, stealing, fighting, and begging. Since no one was enforcing the set rules, no one was following them; people did whatever they could to get more candy. Eventually, we all complained about the unfairness, and our teacher collected all of the candy, then redistributed it evenly, so this time everyone started with three.  People who worked hard for lots of candy were frustrated, and people who struggled to even get one piece were satisfied. 

     It seems strange that one might contribute to this activity in an honors history class, however, the experiment was all a metaphor for capitalism and socialism. The first part of the starburst experiment was a representation of capitalism. Every student started with their own amount, had the freedom to choose who they played with and how often,faced struggle, and argued about fairness. These all show the features of capitalism: Private ownership of industry with inequality, freedom of competition, and unequal social classes. The second half of the experiment; when the teacher collects the candy and redistributes the it, represents socialism. The teacher collecting the candy symbolizes the government's control over the industry, the redistribution shows the goal of economic equality, and the aim for a classless society is shown by each student ending with an equal amount of candy. 

The experiment helped us learn about economic theories created by Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Marx believed that capitalism would never work, and that most people would not accept greatly divided social classes. He believed that people would naturally do whatever it took to receive equal distribution and no social classes, and eventually no government would be needed at all. He believed economy would naturally go from capitalism to socialism, to communism.  Smith’s theory also aims to benefit the poor, just in a different way. Smith believed in “The Invisible Hand.” This theory is the idea that the government would let its people control their own market, even though they would still be considered capitalist, and eventually competition would cause prices to lower and even out.

In my opinion, neither of these two solutions could ever work. Although we have of course faced many economic struggles with our capitalist country, I feel that our methods are the best that they can ever be. Marx’s theory is unrealistic, because there would always be too many greedy people in the world to want to give up their own wealth to help the unfortunate. This was outlined when people in our class who had worked hard for ten starbursts had to be demoted to three. They were all very angry with this decision, and they were right that it wasn't fair to them. People doing whatever they can to reach classlessness just isn't something that could ever happen after we have grown so accustomed to luxuries. Communism and socialism wouldn't work. “The Invisible Hand” theory created by Adam Smith also isn't a realistic idea. People would never be able to get along well enough to control their own economy and let prices even out.  We  need government to keep us in line and following rules; rules that lead us to economic success. Capitalism has its faults, but we need competition in order to be fair. Everyone receiving equal pay isn't fair when some work harder than others, and people are too aware of this to ever make socialism or communism work. Even capitalism with "The Invisible Hand" would never work, because too much competition would cause arguing, and no government intervention would lead to chaos.

    In class we had a Socratic seminar about capitalism, socialism, communism, Marx, Smith and our experiment. We discussed the issues of Marx and smith's economic theories and the pros and cons of socialism communism and capitalism.  One of my classmates seemed to agree with me that capitalism is our best option, and said that hard-workers should not have to be paid the same as a lazy person. Some people are poor because of their own work ethic and occupation. Another classmate explained how socialism takes away the natural right to want to succeed. Communism and socialism seem to conflict with human nature. We need competition to better our world, and we need people to always strive for excellence. Another student suggested that we combine socialism and capitalism because capitalism is too restricted and socialism is too free. I disagree with this; I believe that capitalism goes with human nature and we need rules to follow as well as competition too keep us fair and in line. Even "The Invisible Hand", which is capitalism with a touch of socialistic style, would be disastrous, because people would never be able to get along. Capitalism seems to be the only balanced form of competition, and socialism and communism could take away competition and order. 

   Our experiments and discussions were a great way to learn about what these economic systems were like, and guided us to form our own opinions and preferences on them. I would recommend doing similar exercises in any history class interested in analyzing economic structures.

The Truth Behind the Luddites

    Today, hearing the word luddite, we think of a person who struggles with or is against the common use of technology. However, this is just a modernized definition of a word that once titled a group of people who existed during early industrialization. These people, the luddites, were skilled weavers, mechanics or other artisans who were followers of the mythical figure ‘Ned Ludd’ and destroyed machinery and factories. They were not at all incapable of using technology or opposed to it. For fear that their trades would be replaced entirely by machinery, they protested industrialization in attempt to save their money and jobs. The following paragraph mocks a primary source written by a skilled weaver to her cousin in America, about her opinions on the luddites and industrialization.

 

                                Account of machine breaking at Linthwaite, Yorkshire in March of 1812

Dear cousin Sally,

            A lot of interesting things have been going on lately. As you know, industrialization has really begun to take off. Most consider our continuously increasing technological standards incredible, and people are excited to see so much economic progression. All of this seems fantastic, and greatly beneficial to mankind . However, people like me aren’t receiving anything good from industrialization. I used to weave blankets, and clothes everyday, and I was paid fairly well because of my natural talent. With these new machines around, my business has been completely lost. People with no talent are creating weavings with power looms and stocking frames at a much faster pace than I ever could. Everyone considers this such an accomplishment, but I don’t see anything great about wasting the talents people were born with, and putting faith in a machine that could fail at any second. It feels degrading to be replaced by something as silly as a machine; an inanimate object! Soon, I must find work elsewhere, in a trade I am uncomfortable with while my talent gradually disappears along with my happiness. Things aren’t too good for me, Sally.

         I don’t expect you do agree with how I feel, or even understand me, but that’s perfectly fine. It seems no one else does with the exception of a few friends and maybe a group of people I’ve been seeing around known as the luddites. You’ve probably heard of them too, so before you start to think I've gone insane, remember not to believe all the rumours you hear, and please hear me out before making judgment. As you may already be aware of, the luddites are a group of people who follow a god called ‘ned ludd’ and have lately been made famous because of their vicious attacks on machinery and factories. Just last week, a group of them lit a nearby factory full of stocking frames on fire. Luckily no one was inside at the time. As much as I disagree with the degree of violence displayed by these people, I do understand where their ideas are coming from. I believe that most of them would understand how I feel about industrialization. Luddites are all skilled artisans, like myself, and I know how tough it is to watch as your talent gets replaced by machinery. I would never want to destroy machines with hammers, hurt another person, or destroy a building to make my point; I realize those are all sins. But I do believe that someone should be standing up for people like myself, just in a more reserved manner. Unfortunately I wouldn’t know where to start; and neither did the luddites, which is how all of this chaos began. Even though we do need to stop our technological advancements, it frankly cannot be done. As much as I understand this, I still have empathy for the luddites, and admire them a bit for at least trying to do what's right. Hopefully you don’t find me crazy, and you still care for me. Write back soon dear Sally.

With love,

                          Your dearest cousin Susanna.



Link to Picture/Primary Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/politics/g3/source/g3s1a.htm
 

The Ups and Downs of A Women's Work

    Although today it seems that a young girl would never have the courage to leave home, and sacrifice almost everything to start supporting her family, there was once a time when doing so was a regular occurrence. In the 1800s, during the Industrial Revolution, the “Lowell Experiment” was created. As English industries continued to face disastrous conditions, the American people were paying close attention to their country to try to avoid making similar mistakes. The experiment was an industrial project designed to reach typical manufacturing and industry goals without facing any of England’s issues. In order to be successful, the experiment required the labor of countless workers, and with some persuasion, thousands of industry owners were able to convince many young girls’ families to let them work.

    The argument used to convince women’s father’s to send their girls Lowell proved to be very convincing. Families were continuing to struggle financially, and sending away one family member would mean one less expensive mouth to feed, and one more salary to add to the their income. The experiment was said to aid the girls themselves as well, by teaching them the manners of a lady, independence, and responsibility. It was of course difficult for fathers to make the choice of sending their daughters away, but they had no other money options, and were hopeful that their little girl would personally be positively impacted by their decision. Industry owners made the choice seem very promising, and thousands of women were brought to work.

    Despite there being several good reasons to join the Lowell experiment, working there wasn’t ideal for the girls who joined. They were told to expect more independence, which they did receive from living on their own, but they lost the freedom of being able to control their work load and daily schedule. The type of work they did was very different. Rather than doing different types of feminine tasks throughout the day, they stayed in the same spot manning heavy machinery for the duration of the day. They all lived together in a strictly regulated boarding house with rules and authorities to obey. They did however get a chance to shop for themselves with their earnings and have the power to determine their own fate once their work contract ended. Some planned to eventually seek different work and pursue more feminine jobs, or to get married. As much as their independence was expanded from their choice to work in the mills, it was also equally limited in different ways.

    Along with a more enforced working schedule and new restrictions, participating in the Lowell experiment came with a low pay; lower than it was meant to be. When farming, these ladies had never been paid a penny that was their own to keep, but losing some of their promised salary was still huge let-down when they knew they deserved more. The 15 percent wage-cut hurt the women’s families, and their pride, since it took away from some of their gained freedom. Strikes, protests and boycotting were brought to Lowell in the 1830s, and women were forced to stick by each other and fight for each other to receive what they deserved. This madness was definitely not what they had in mind when the first chose to take on the mills.

   

    

     Attitudes of women in the 1800s were reflected through their opportunities and restrictions on their working lives. Their wage cuts and strict watch suggested that they were still thought of as less important than men (as they always had been). However, the fact that they were at least allowed some extra freedom and their own salaries shows that their treatment had been slightly improved. After their protests against wage-cuts many mill workers went on to become powerful figures fighting for womens rights. The 1800s was clearly a time when a woman’s image was gradually changing, and their protests helped to change that image even more by proving their ability to be rebellious and powerful.

   
     The Lowell Experiment was expected to be a complete success, but turned out to have an equal amount of flaws and benefits. Of course we needed a few mistakes to learn from in order to improve our industries, and women’s rights. The protests that the experiment caused were the beginnings of many more to come which lead to gender equality, and factory conditions continued to improve with each mistake made in the industry world. The Lowell Experiment may have had its ups and downs, but it did help shape the world we live in today.