In the 1800s, women had a very different role in society than they do today. They were supposed to act in a very particular way, and the way that women were expected to act was summarized into four characteristics. The first was piety. Women were expected to be very religious and their actions were supposed to imitate that of Eve's, in order to steer the world from sin. A second characteristic of women in the 1800s was sexual purity. If a woman was to lose her virginity to a man other than her husband, she was seen as a lesser being that was not worthy of the title "woman". Virginity was also called a woman's "greatest treasure" that only a husband could obtain. Along from being seen as a lesser being, the woman that gave away her treasure was exiled from society, and many would die alone in poverty.
While a woman was strictly directed to protect her "treasure", she was also taught to be submissive to men, while men were instructed to never submit to anyone. Articles of clothing that restricted her inner organs would make women weak, and they would faint often. This also contributed to women being submissive, as it was seen as evidence that she needed a protector, and that she should be able to see her lesser position in society. The final characteristic of women in the 19th century was domesticity. Women were expected to work in the home, and remain in what is referred to as the "private sphere", or the private confines of a home. Men, however, were seen as strong enough to exist in the "public sphere", which would be the 'dangerous' outside world of work. This is also referred to as the Cult of Domesticity, the idea that women belong at home doing menial housework while men are supposed to be the ones who work and earn the family's income. Unfortunately, this notion still exists today.
In order to remedy the problems of women's rights in the 1800s, a meeting called the Seneca Falls Convention was called into order. It attempted to solve the problems with gender inequality by writing the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. In order to give the document more symbolic impact, it was structured in a very similar way to the Declaration of Independence, even including many of the exact phrases used in the Declaration. One of the ideas that was in the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments was the demand that women be able to vote, otherwise known as suffrage. It was controversially put into the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments because some of the members of the Convention still believed that women should not be able to vote, simply because of the potential backlash from the public. Women were supposed to have the same exact opinions as their husbands, and women were not allowed to vote because then this would give married couples an advantage in elections.
Unfortunately, the Seneca Falls Convention did not represent everyone. In reality, the only ones represented were upper and middle class white women. In class, we did an activity where we investigated one particular group of underrepresented women and made a list of demands similar to the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. I was assigned mill worker girls, and some of the other groups that were not equally represented were free black women, slaves, and Native Americans. We then compiled a list of resolutions that these groups would have wanted. In short, they called for the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, more regulated workplaces, and the notion that women be treated by the government as citizens with full rights of any other American. They somewhat reflected the progressive ideas of the Convention, however most of them were different than what was written in the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments.
Out of all the resolutions created by our class, I think that the most important one is that women be treated as full and complete citizens of the United States. This allows them to be equally represented in the courts, enables them to participate in any organization or institution, and lets them have the exact same opportunities as anyone else that is a citizen of the States. In my opinion, this has by and large been accomplished in the United States. Women unfortunately do not have as many opportunities as men in some cases, but legally, men and women are equal. While there are still strides to be made in the battle for gender equality, I believe that the majority of the resolutions of the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments have been accomplished.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Friday, December 5, 2014
The Monroe Doctrine and its Lasting Signifigance
In February of 2014, Russia refused to recognize a new interim government created in the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution. This action and others followed by Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and other countries eventually culminated into Russia's annexing of the Crimean Peninsula, seizing control of it. This article, written by the Wall Street Journal, references Russian president Vladimir Putin's remarks in his yearly state of the union address. In particular, the article highlights his accusation that the United States and European Union used the Crimean crisis as an excuse to encourage the placement of sanctions upon Russia, as part of a conspiracy to weaken the country. These sanctions, or economic restrictions, were created by the United Nations as punishment for countries that broke international laws.
If this issue occurred in 1823, the year the Monroe Doctrine was written, the response by the United States would be drastically different. According to the Doctrine, the United States will not become involved in any conflicts that were not directly affecting the country itself. Along with this principle of non-intervention, it said that the United States would regard any attempt by a European country to colonize North or South America as a direct threat. If these principles were followed in the case of the Crimean crisis, the United States would not be involved at all. The US's relations with Russia are not the best, but they are not considered a direct threat to the country, so the United States should not be involved. Also, Crimea, Russia, and the Ukraine are all in Western Asia, so the non-colonization rule does not apply. This shows that while the Monroe Doctrine was very effective and useful back in 1823, the circumstances have changed over the years and now intervention may be required across the globe in foreign controversies.
Marson, James, and Andy Ostroukh. The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 04 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.
If this issue occurred in 1823, the year the Monroe Doctrine was written, the response by the United States would be drastically different. According to the Doctrine, the United States will not become involved in any conflicts that were not directly affecting the country itself. Along with this principle of non-intervention, it said that the United States would regard any attempt by a European country to colonize North or South America as a direct threat. If these principles were followed in the case of the Crimean crisis, the United States would not be involved at all. The US's relations with Russia are not the best, but they are not considered a direct threat to the country, so the United States should not be involved. Also, Crimea, Russia, and the Ukraine are all in Western Asia, so the non-colonization rule does not apply. This shows that while the Monroe Doctrine was very effective and useful back in 1823, the circumstances have changed over the years and now intervention may be required across the globe in foreign controversies.
Marson, James, and Andy Ostroukh. The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 04 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.
Race and Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today
Race and identity are clearly very prevalent aspects in society today. They aid in determining who we are and how others view us, be it positively or negatively. This role in society that race and identity both play is also by no means a recent creation. For as far back history goes, these two factors have been incredibly influential in many historical events. An example of this would be the early 19th century revolutions in Latin America.
In revolutions such as Haiti's and Gran Columbia's, race and identity had very large roles and were instrumental for the success of the revolution. However, in Brazil's revolution, these were not very important aspects, and as a result the revolution remained mostly peaceful. When Napoleon invaded Portugal in 1807, the Portuguese King John VI fled to his colony Brazil. In 1820, the Portuguese army headed a revolution to create a constitutional government, and agreed that John VI would be the constitutional monarch if and only if he returned to Portugal. He returned the next year, and left his son Pedro behind to rule Brazil.
The push for Brazil's independence was inspired by the other revolutions in other Latin American countries that surrounded Brazil. Parliamentary acts by Portugal also offended many Brazilian citizens, which contributed to their revolution for independence. Instead of fighting the rebels, Pedro declared Brazil's independence from Portugal. This was done because it prevented violence while still keeping power in the Portuguese royal family, because Pedro, John VI's son, was still entitled to the Brazilian throne. This peaceful revolution clearly has few ties to race and identity, for two main reasons. The first is because the final portion of the revolution, the one that actually secured Brazil's independence, was largely orchestrated by the Portuguese parliament and the royal family, not the racially diverse citizens of Brazil. Secondly, the revolution was largely nonviolent. This is significant because violent revolutions usually are stimulated by a conflict of either race or identity. These two factors made race and identity almost non-issues in Brazil's revolution for independence. As a result, the social structure remained largely unchanged, and Brazil took longer than Latin American countries to make reforms such as abolishing slavery because of this.
Once again, race today still has incredible influence on national identity and politics. One such issue that is going on today is the conflict in Ferguson, Missouri. This conflict surrounds the death of Micheal Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was killed by Darren Wilson, a white police officer. Many deemed the death unnecessary and labeled it as a murder, giving it massive popularity and an incredible media following. The recent verdict that the police officer is innocent of the charges presented to him caused an even bigger uproar, causing many protests and riots. What is remarkable is that other similar events have taken place in the short past, and this is a clear indicator that race and identity still have very large effects on society and politics today. The massive uproar after this event and others like it shows how important race is for our country.
Weaver, Matthew. "Ferguson Protests: Calmer Scenes after Night of Violence – as It Happened." The Guardian. N.p., 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Congress of Vienna
Throughout history, people in positions of great power have made desperate actions to retain their power over others. Their actions that allow them to stay in power when threatened, however, are generally self-centered and usually detrimental to others. A collection of these kinds of people, those whose power had been threatened, took place at the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna took place in 1814, in order to establish long term peace in Europe after the fall of Napoleon. Chaired by the Austrian Prince Clemens von Metternich, it was attended by a representative from each European state. In order to understand the decisions made during the Congress of Vienna, our class took the role of Prince Clemens von Metternich and predicted what decisions he would support regarding various issues in early 19th century Europe.
The Principle of Intervention was one of the major decisions made at the Congress of Vienna. It gave the nations of Europe (Russia included) the right to send forces into other countries to quell revolutions that may arise. This kept the leaders in power by giving their allies the right to eliminate any potential threat to their leaderships. The overall impact of the Congress of Vienna was very widespread and extremely impactful. France was made into a constitutional monarchy, and many revolutions began in the following years, but there were positive impacts as well. The borders of Europe were redrawn, and this led to a balance of power, which helped make peace in between the European states.
While the decisions made in the Congress of Vienna caused peace in between countries, they were not necessarily the correct decisions that were made. The decisions that were made generally supported the upper class, and not the working class, who composed the vast majority of the population. A better decision that could have been made would be to not institute the Principle of Intervention at all, and for nations to be more open to the ideas of the people. This would create nations that would be approved by a larger percent of its citizens. Unfortunately for the powerful delegates of the Congress of Vienna, this would involve sacrificing some of their power for the greater good. In reality, the powerful members of the Congress of Vienna made the decision to retain their power, and Europe became one step closer to the place it is today.
The Principle of Intervention was one of the major decisions made at the Congress of Vienna. It gave the nations of Europe (Russia included) the right to send forces into other countries to quell revolutions that may arise. This kept the leaders in power by giving their allies the right to eliminate any potential threat to their leaderships. The overall impact of the Congress of Vienna was very widespread and extremely impactful. France was made into a constitutional monarchy, and many revolutions began in the following years, but there were positive impacts as well. The borders of Europe were redrawn, and this led to a balance of power, which helped make peace in between the European states.
While the decisions made in the Congress of Vienna caused peace in between countries, they were not necessarily the correct decisions that were made. The decisions that were made generally supported the upper class, and not the working class, who composed the vast majority of the population. A better decision that could have been made would be to not institute the Principle of Intervention at all, and for nations to be more open to the ideas of the people. This would create nations that would be approved by a larger percent of its citizens. Unfortunately for the powerful delegates of the Congress of Vienna, this would involve sacrificing some of their power for the greater good. In reality, the powerful members of the Congress of Vienna made the decision to retain their power, and Europe became one step closer to the place it is today.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Napoleon's Impact on the World
Napoleon Bonaparte is considered by many to be the greatest military leader in all of history. However, Napoleon wasn't only a great French general. During his great conquest of Europe in the early 1800s, Napoleon reformed social structures all over Europe, stimulated economic activity, and completely overhauled political boundaries and structures in all the territory that he conquered. These dramatic changes remained after Napoleon lost control of the land, and their effects have continued for centuries afterwards.
A major focus for Napoleon's conquest was to reform the social systems of his conquered nations to his liking, and to make them the same as France's. Under his rule, he granted citizens more rights to education and property ownership. He also abolished social statuses, granting greater equality to the new citizens of Napoleon's Empire. These social reforms also had influences on the following governments for the region, after Napoleon was overthrown.
Napoleon Bonaparte also stimulated economic growth under his reign of power. He accomplished this growth by controlling prices, encouraging new industry, and focusing on public works projects to encourage prosperity. These public works projects largely remained after his reign ended, allowing resources to move more efficiently and the economy to prosper long after he was forced out of the areas. He also removed trade barriers between nations, allowing for more trade in Europe. Finally, he established the Bank of France. With the bank, he balanced the budget of his empire and allowed everything to be amply funded.
Finally, Napoleon reorganized political systems in ways that were more just and democratic than the previous ones of the empires that he conquered. Firstly, he expanded political boundaries. In 1803, he sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States, allowing the country to prosper with its newly acquired land. The countries in Europe also had their borders changed, as Napoleon completely redrew the map of Europe when he was in power. And example is Egypt, where Napoleon completely overhauled the government. Along with this, he also established the first institution for the study of ancient Egyptian society. He also established a meritocracy in his empire, which ignored social class and judged individuals on their personal skills. Napoleon's global influence on social systems, economics, and political structure show that this great man was more than simply a very successful conqueror, but a wise and great leader as well.
A major focus for Napoleon's conquest was to reform the social systems of his conquered nations to his liking, and to make them the same as France's. Under his rule, he granted citizens more rights to education and property ownership. He also abolished social statuses, granting greater equality to the new citizens of Napoleon's Empire. These social reforms also had influences on the following governments for the region, after Napoleon was overthrown.
Napoleon Bonaparte also stimulated economic growth under his reign of power. He accomplished this growth by controlling prices, encouraging new industry, and focusing on public works projects to encourage prosperity. These public works projects largely remained after his reign ended, allowing resources to move more efficiently and the economy to prosper long after he was forced out of the areas. He also removed trade barriers between nations, allowing for more trade in Europe. Finally, he established the Bank of France. With the bank, he balanced the budget of his empire and allowed everything to be amply funded.
Finally, Napoleon reorganized political systems in ways that were more just and democratic than the previous ones of the empires that he conquered. Firstly, he expanded political boundaries. In 1803, he sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States, allowing the country to prosper with its newly acquired land. The countries in Europe also had their borders changed, as Napoleon completely redrew the map of Europe when he was in power. And example is Egypt, where Napoleon completely overhauled the government. Along with this, he also established the first institution for the study of ancient Egyptian society. He also established a meritocracy in his empire, which ignored social class and judged individuals on their personal skills. Napoleon's global influence on social systems, economics, and political structure show that this great man was more than simply a very successful conqueror, but a wise and great leader as well.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism
As an introduction to our unit on capitalism, communism, and socialism, an experiment was performed among the class. Each person was given some candy at the beginning of class, with most people having 3 pieces and a select few having 10. We were instructed to play rock-paper-scissors with a minimum bet of 1 piece of candy with each other. For me, the game was fun, as I won my way from 3 candies to 7 at the end of our simulation. We were informed that this was the basis of capitalism, where there is a free market. This means that while some are born into large amounts of wealth, people are allowed to trade (in this case, play rock-paper-scissors) as much as they want, without any outside governmental interference. After, Ms. Bailey took all of our candies, and redistributed 3 once again to everyone. While playing the game was fun, it was frustrating that all of my hard work was for nothing.
Karl Marx and Adam Smith, the founders of communism and capitalism, both created their societal systems with the goal of helping the poor. Under communism, there is a shared ownership of all goods, and in theory, the individual morals of the people would eliminate the need for any kind of governing body. This would help the poor because under communism, everyone has the same amount of wealth and the society is classless. Socialism is similar to communism, where wealth is distributed among the population. The poor are aided here by the distribution of wealth by the government.
Adam Smith had a different, more passive idea for helping the poor through capitalism. Dubbed 'the invisible hand', Smith's theory was that without interfering at all with the economy, the poor would be offered higher quality goods for lower prices. To accomplish this, assuming the quality is the same, poor would naturally buy the cheapest kind of product available to them. This causes competition between businesses, which leads to either improved quality of goods, a lower price, or a completely new product to be sold. All three options are valid candidates for purchase, and as they are purchased, the economy is stimulated, without any governmental interference. It was given the name of invisible hand because when done correctly, it appears that there is some guiding force to the economy, where there really is none at all.
Each of these socioeconomic systems, when present in its 'true', or 'pure' form, has significant drawbacks. In socialism and communism, it is very difficult or impossible to become 'wealthy' compared to one's peers, and these systems discourage hard work because everyone will always receive the same or a similar amount of wealth. In capitalism, it is unfair that some are born into much more wealthy families than others. Along with this, the invisible hand can often take a long time to function properly, leading to economic hardship before it can fully be effective. Given these drawbacks, I believe that the only 'good' solution for a socioeconomic system is a combination of the three. A system that encourages and rewards hard work while also distributing some wealth to the poor, ideally would be perfect. Unfortunately, it's never truly possible to make a perfect society, and there will always be a downside to every system that is created.
In class, a Socratic seminar was conducted about these systems. There was discussion about other people's reactions to the game, and discussion of which system each person preferred. There was a pretty clear consensus that out of the three, capitalism was the best, but most agreed that there is no perfect system. As Ryan said, "CEOs make like 200 times more than the average worker. Clearly they work harder, but not 200 times harder". This point was one of the few that was agreed upon by everyone at the seminar. It was decided that people need a government for equality and to regulate some things, but there must be a limit on the regulation, and that a blend of capitalism, communism, and socialism is ideal for a society.
Karl Marx and Adam Smith, the founders of communism and capitalism, both created their societal systems with the goal of helping the poor. Under communism, there is a shared ownership of all goods, and in theory, the individual morals of the people would eliminate the need for any kind of governing body. This would help the poor because under communism, everyone has the same amount of wealth and the society is classless. Socialism is similar to communism, where wealth is distributed among the population. The poor are aided here by the distribution of wealth by the government.
Adam Smith had a different, more passive idea for helping the poor through capitalism. Dubbed 'the invisible hand', Smith's theory was that without interfering at all with the economy, the poor would be offered higher quality goods for lower prices. To accomplish this, assuming the quality is the same, poor would naturally buy the cheapest kind of product available to them. This causes competition between businesses, which leads to either improved quality of goods, a lower price, or a completely new product to be sold. All three options are valid candidates for purchase, and as they are purchased, the economy is stimulated, without any governmental interference. It was given the name of invisible hand because when done correctly, it appears that there is some guiding force to the economy, where there really is none at all.
Each of these socioeconomic systems, when present in its 'true', or 'pure' form, has significant drawbacks. In socialism and communism, it is very difficult or impossible to become 'wealthy' compared to one's peers, and these systems discourage hard work because everyone will always receive the same or a similar amount of wealth. In capitalism, it is unfair that some are born into much more wealthy families than others. Along with this, the invisible hand can often take a long time to function properly, leading to economic hardship before it can fully be effective. Given these drawbacks, I believe that the only 'good' solution for a socioeconomic system is a combination of the three. A system that encourages and rewards hard work while also distributing some wealth to the poor, ideally would be perfect. Unfortunately, it's never truly possible to make a perfect society, and there will always be a downside to every system that is created.
In class, a Socratic seminar was conducted about these systems. There was discussion about other people's reactions to the game, and discussion of which system each person preferred. There was a pretty clear consensus that out of the three, capitalism was the best, but most agreed that there is no perfect system. As Ryan said, "CEOs make like 200 times more than the average worker. Clearly they work harder, but not 200 times harder". This point was one of the few that was agreed upon by everyone at the seminar. It was decided that people need a government for equality and to regulate some things, but there must be a limit on the regulation, and that a blend of capitalism, communism, and socialism is ideal for a society.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
What was Up with the Luddites?
The Luddites were a group of artisans in 19th century England that protested against technological advancement. Some of their professions were weavers, mechanics, and other artisans. They sabotaged, or attacked, factories and machines in the early stage of industrialization. A figure that they were motivated by was Ned Ludd, a fictional Robin Hood-like character. The motives for their malicious actions were due to the amount of skill in work decreasing due to industrialization. With the skill floor lowered for such work, they were left without a use for their profession, and were unable to recruit apprentices. This caused economic hardship and instilled hatred towards the factory owners, motivating them to destroy the very machines that had made their lives so difficult. The following is a mock primary source letter written in the point of view as a farmer who is observing the conflict between the Luddites and soldiers sent to protect the factories. His daughter was sent to the mills to work, and the letter is addressed to her.
Dear Daughter,
 |
| Luddites breaking a weaving machine. Image credit to Wikimedia Commons. |
Word has reached our farm that Luddites have attacked factories and mills close to the area in which you are working. I fear for your safety, but I confide in the solders that are being sent to your mill in the coming days. What are your thoughts on these rebels of industry? I have mixed feelings about them. While I am very concerned for your health should they approach your mill, I also fear that the industrialization will force our family out of our farming tradition and into a new life of monotonous factory work. I do not think that I will act for or against them. We are in dire need of work at home on the farm, and my guidance and labor is essential for a successful harvest. I wish you nothing but the best as you continue your work at the mill, and we will be praying for your safety.
Regards,
Father
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)