In response to Charlie

In response to this post by Charlie.  

Charlie’s post on the Peril of Tribes is exactly what made the Sykes-Picot agreement one of the most inflammatory agreements of all-time.  I mentioned it in one of my earlier posts, but European misunderstandings of the Middle East are not more apparent then the land divisions created by the British and the French.  This problem stems from the European arrogance that had driven European imperialism, along with many other things, in Africa and all over the world.  The Europeans go in not accounting for the existing cultures or societal arrangements and impose their will on their victims.  They only had the ability to do this because of their military dominance, which holds true of the post WWI situation in the Middle East.  Britain and France had just proved to the world that they had the ability to defeat the greatest power in the continent, an important fact when it comes to the idea of revolt.  All this goes to your head, and the Europeans basically ignored the actual Middle East when it approached their land divisions.  An interesting point about the Perils of the Tribes is the fact that poorly designed land divisions not only hurt the Europeans in the sense that people were angry at them, but it also opened the Pandora’s box of issues within the Middle East itself.  Tribes were not only looking for a way out from European control, which had been put upon them after false promises, but also took up issues with surrounding Middle Eastern enemies.  This made the Middle East even more of a difficult place to control, and has basically gone unresolved.  

In response to Charlie

This is a response to three of Charlie's posts, here, here, and here.

The rivalry between France and Britain that had a huge impact in the Middle East before WWI had pretty much disappeared after the war.  This is mainly because Britain and France had just fought on the same side in order to defeat the Germans, and now that they had supreme control over the Middle East, thanks to the destroyed Ottomans, there was no reason they couldn’t be happy each accepting half of the territory.  Russia was a noteworthy participant in the rivalry consisting of Britain and France before WWI, and they also had a role in the Sykes-Picot agreement.  Interestingly, the rivalry that had to some degree weakened between Britain and France remained strong with Russia.  The fact that Russia was still at odds with Britain and France meant that the Middle East was only going to act as another battleground for the tension that existed between the two sides.  

In response to Charlie

In response to this post.  

The story of the Russians recounted by Charlie in his post sheds important light on the future of European affair in the Middle East after WWI.  First off, it shows Russia’s early ambitions in the area, which were still present at the time of the Sykes-Picot agreement.  Russians have always been ones to see adjacent territory as their own, and the quest for a simple route between central Asia and Russia was very much alive well after the Khivans took advantage of them.  On another note, this story also shows the consistent misunderstanding with which Europe has approached the Middle East.  After WWI, when the Britain and France divided up the Middle East, the borders that were drawn showed a clear misunderstanding of the Middle East.  The country of Iraq essentially included three different groups of people, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds (northern Iraq).  This has turned in to a huge problem, because the borders that have been drawn are hard to change and have basically created concrete boundaries for people who don’t necessarily want to live next to each other.  Along with that, there’s the British total miscalculation of Israel.  No one knows how or why Britain thought Israel was going to work without resistance, given the fact that the British made two contradictory agreements.  This is a common trend when it comes to Europeans and the Middle East, misunderstanding.  

In response to Charlie

In response to this post by Charlie.  

I think everything stated in this post is good, except I think Charlie leaves out one extremely important part that becomes extremely apparent after WWI.  Not only did control in the middle east mean control over the silk road, which meant that Britain and her European friends did not have to deal with the siphoning of money by the middle man, but it also gave Europe new markets.  Captialism only works when there are people who want to buy produced goods, and the more people you have the more money you can make.  Viewing the Middle East as simply a connection between two sides of the world that Europeans wanted to control simply for the sake of keeping their trade direct accounts for only half of the European plan with the Middle East.  They wanted control, but they also wanted to use population for their profit.  

More on the Swedish Model

I agree that the purpose of any state is the security of its citizens, but at what price this comes at is determined by the different forms of government. In some cases a state’s security might come from financial burdens shouldered by its citizens. In other cases their might be a body burden (soldiers in the army) that is taken by the citizens. In some governments the citizens give up most of their basic rights in order to be protected. What is consistent in all these though is the fact that a government can’t provide security without asking some of its people. This seems obvious considering it takes resources to do anything (protection or otherwise), and a state’s people is its most important resource. The question is then do the people see what they’re doing as being a legitimate sacrifice, and this question is left in total doubt if there is no transparency within a government. If you enter the armed forces without knowing what you’re fighting for, the weight you shoulder hardly seems worth it. The same is true when it comes to what you’re fighting against. Had the USA, in the wake of 9/11, just launched a war against the Middle East, I think it would have been hard to convince the America people of its legitimacy. But, by targeting a specific person / political group, you put a face on the enemy and show people what exactly their fighting against. All governments should be responsible for protecting their people, and all governments will in turn ask sacrifices of their people. But when governments hide what their people are sacrificing for, or what their fighting against, the government will slowly start to lose the support of the citizens. In Sweden, this wasn’t a problem because people knew what they were sacrificing for.

In response to Cas' response to my Swedish Model post

The argument over whether the Swedish Model is already present in America, I think we can turn to the recent debate over the torture photos as an obvious example of a government doing things wrong.  The only reason that the US would not want the torture photos, let alone the fact that they were (and probably are) torturing people, getting out into the rest of the world is that it would compromise their integrity as a government of the people, and therefore its place as a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.  There was never a ballot measure that involved the approval of relentless torture, and in order for the government to get around this they kept the secret within the government.  Now, it’s true that America has a huge government, but total transparency is not impossible.  The reason it’s currently hard to achieve is the question of security.  The safety of the American people is the priority of the government (just like I mentioned earlier in my first post), and this means that the bad guys can’t know what the US government is up to.  So the task then becomes eliminating the security threats that exist, which means resolving conflicts around the world where people dislike us.  But, we can’t just give into the opposition’s measures and seek a trail of appeasement until everyone’s problems have been dealt with, this would hurt American’s financially.  Hurt Americans don’t vote the president back into the presidency, and so it’s important for the government to not hurt Americans.  So, what does America do?  Total transparency at the price of the American people, or no transparency and Americans don’t pay a price for their security?  We either have to bite the bullet and accept the actions of our government, or take the bull by the horns and have it come out of our own pocket.  I’d be willing to pay for a better government because down the road this will actually pay itself back with increased economical success.  I’m just gonna have to suck it up before down the road is the present.  

Land Divisions in the Sykes-Picot agreement

As seen on this website, the actual allocations of territory in the Sykes-Picot agreement involved Britain getting modern day Jordan, Southern Iraq, and another small area that allowed British access to the Mediterranean Sea. This last territory near Haifa, is evidence of the economical outlook the British took into their negotiations for territory. A port was key for a super power like Britain who had the best Navy in the world. The French took control of southeastern Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and northern Iraq. The Russian’s were to take control over Constantinople, the Turkish Straits, and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets. All these territories were economically prosperous and would allow each of these nations to have a more controlling hand in the world economy.

The Sykes-Picot agreement

The Sykes-Picot agreement detailed in this BBC article, which was accomplished in 1916, involved Britain and France with the knowledge and approval of Russia. The agreement focused on the manner in which the Middle East was going to be divided once the Ottoman Empire fell during World War I. France and Britain viewed the agreement as essentially dividing the Middle East into western spheres of influence revolving around trade and economic prosperity. The fact that this agreement even existed is evidence of the economic and colonial mindset the Europeans had when they thought about the outcome of World War I. They’re talking about how they’re going to divide up the Ottoman Empire before they’ve even won the war, and they show the fact that their promises in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence to the Arab people that helped them over throw the Ottoman Empire were completely worthless to begin with.

The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence

The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, which is described by a Middle Eastern Website here, was a conversation between the Sharif of Mecca Husayn bin Ali and Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt. The conversation was about the political future of the Arab nations, who at the time were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The Arab nations were already moving in the direction of the large-scale revolt against the Ottomans, and the British took that sentiment as an opportunity to defeat the Ottomans by strongly encouraging the Arab nations to revolt. The Arab nations had previously offered up the idea of an Ottoman Arab revolt in 1914 in the Damascus Protocol, which basically declared that were the Arabs to revolt, the British would guarantee independence for Arabia. Because the Ottomans had not entered World War I on the side of the Germans yet, the British refused this deal because the British wanted to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. But once the Ottomans entered World War I against the British, the British sought revolt from the Arabs. The Arabs saw their conversation with the British as an agreement, and mobilized a military force that then attacked the Ottomans in 1916.

The Swedish Model

Transparency with the government is the most important aspect to the Swedish model of state.  With no closed doors, everyone can understand exactly was is taking place, and how it will affect them.  I think it's interesting that a government like the Swedish model is quite powerful, given that it decides that fate of children instead of the family, yet there is not a huge aversion to it like most all-powerful governments have received in the past.  Transparency is the most essential part to this phenomenon, and I think that it's importance is evidence that most people don't want to have control over what happens to them, but would rather have someone else makes decisions, as long as the person understands why those decisions are being made.  I argued in an earlier post, in response to Declan, that dictatorships are the most natural form of governments for people, because people are naturally inclined to just give up their responsibility in return for protection.  Where most dictatorships go wrong in where Sweden went right, hiding everything behind lies and the like.  The reason why  most dictators lie is because their policies normally do not benefit the people as much as the people would like or expect, and the dictators are afraid that if the public knows the truth their house of cards will collapse.  The Swedish government doesn't have to worry about this, but it's policies are totally legit, and therefore they are willing to show everyone what's going on.  This means that the people will gladly have no power, which again it something natural for humans.   

Israel and The British

In this post I am going to attempt to talk a little about the conflict that is Israel (with the help of Wikipedia).  I think it’s probably the most hotly debated global issue that involves specific populations, and it was started (not exactly true, but for the purposes of MEH it was) after World War I and the British’s secret treaty that promised many people of Jewish heritage a safe haven in Israel, which was enacted upon when the British allowed the Jewish population to increase in Israel after that had taken control of it.  This is countered by the fact that Arab people had been living in Israel for the past 1300 years, and saw the take over of Jewish people as a horrible result from their help to the British during World War I.  This conflict had, and continues to have, huge ramifications across the world, and especially in the Middle East.  It put the British in a very difficult position, because it neither succumb to the Arab Nationalism, especially considering the rise of Hitler, who threatened the Jewish people, and leave the Jewish nation out to dry, but it couldn’t give the Jewish people complete control and absolutely embitter and anger the Arabs who had been living in the region for so long.  The British in some ways were saved from having to figure it out completely, because the problem was passed along to the United Nations after the Allied victory.  During the period between WWI and WWII, the British essentially tried to play the middle ground and hope that both sides would be comfortable with some sort of compromise.  But, as can been seen currently, the two sides were never able to be satisfied at the same time, and the British were left to try to make the best of a situation they had caused themselves by issuing conflicting promises.  

The Middle East and Europe

During the time between World War I and World War II there were many revolts in the Middle East that were centered around the idea of self-governing (see this Wikipedia article).  The British and French put all of these revolts down, although Egypt did end up becoming an independent nation in 1924.  But, it wasn’t true independence because the British used Cairo during WWII as the base for most its operations in the area, claiming all of their troop presence was legitimate because it needed to protect the Suez Canal.  Most of the revolts were obvious reactions to the hoodwinking British and French who had promised self-governance in return for help during WWI to defeat the Ottomans.  These revolts characterized the Middle Eastern attitude towards the invasion of European control, and it’s clear that the Middle East wasn’t going to succumb without a fight.   The being said, the Middle East didn’t have much success in throwing off the colonial powers because the sheer power Britain and France possessed.  All during the period between the two wars, especially considering the fact that oil was discovered in Persia in 1908, and then in Saudi Arabia in 1938, the colonial powers had their hand economic activity through out the region.  Although many of the states in the region gained independence after WWII, this did not mean they were left completely alone by Europeans.  Oil had clear ramifications for the Europeans because it was so important in maintaining a strong military and economic state.  Oil, much to the dismay of the Middle Eastern people, would keep a foreign hand in the Middle East until the present day.  This combined with the fact that religion has always been a huge dividing factor in the Middle East, has proven to cause more problems than anyone knows how to correct.  

Response to Charlie about Cold war

In response to Charlie's post about the simulation of the cold war we did in class, I felt that the simulation was in many ways pointless because in many ways the cold war was pointless.  When each side has the ability to completely and utterly destroy the opponent, it takes the fun out of trying to figure out how to approach the world from a militaristic stand point.  That combined with the fact that the way to "win" was to not kill the enemy was something I felt was silly, which is of course directly related to the fact that each side has tons of nukes.  I agree with Charlie on his point that there was a "realistic" (I put this in parentheses because Charlie has not idea how the Cold War actually, and nor do I, but nevertheless) aspect to the game in the fact that it was hard to predict what the other side was going to do for their turn.  I think that the game would have been better had there been a prize at the end, or something to truly egg on each side to victory.

But back to my point about how the cold war was pointless.  It's true that the expansionist Communists were something to fear for Americans, who saw that spread of communism as the inevitable fall of capitalism and liberty as they knew it.  But, the Communists power was waning well before the end of the cold war because of the weakness of their party in Russia, and all American's actions, which I agree with Charlie were more aggressive, were taken under the impression that the Russians were going to perpetrate havoc across the land.  It was as if the Americans were preparing to fight and enemy that had ceased to exist by the time they felt they were going to make a difference, making all of it pointless. 

Response to Charlie

In response to Charlie’s post about communism, I would say that Communism in its actual form was never even practiced in Russia for the exact reasons you mention.  I think the fact that Stalin found it legitimate to kill more peasants than should ever had been killed is a sign that Stalin wasn’t really a communist, but instead an authoritative dictator who had fantastically believed himself to be a communist, and therefore a representative of the people.  There were some communist aspects to Stalin’s regime, but I not feel it accurately reflects what communism is.  That being said, I also feel that Stalin is evidence of why communism can never actually work, cause something like Stalin will always prevent communism from actually working.  Why does Stalinesque things happen?  Because in no culture in the history of man has the poor and dejected people’s ever been helped to a point of comfort without simply turning them into rich people that take advantage of new poor people.  It’s a fatal flaw of living in a world where people are competitive and born with advantages.  There will never be an equilibrium that communism strives for, and this means that something like Stalin will always occur when communism is trying to found itself.  

Response to Charlie / Semi-Rant

In response to Charlie’s post about the economic policies of Keynes during the Great Depression, I would agree with the fact that it was truly World War II that brought the US out of their misery.  All the deficit spending Roosevelt had implemented, such as the public works organization that gave many people jobs, only helped put a temporary band-aid on the bleeding of the American people.  When Americans started to rally around the war effort, and the US needed strong manufacturing output in order to combat that behemoth Germany army, American’s economic fortunes changed.  What I think is interesting, is given all this, why did the Americans wait so long to join the war.  If turning America into a war state with tons of weapon manufacturing helped the economy, why didn’t they start doing this as soon as the Great Depression was getting bad and Hitler was slowly taking over Europe because England and France had no back bone.  Which brings me to another point, the fact that the British and French used appeasement to keep Hitler as bay makes me sick to my stomach.  I see not argument, except war fatigued, which is just a bad argument because an evil like Hitler does not fatigue, that can defend the British and French.  They should have mobilized their MILLIONS of colonial troops to their favor, borrowed money from everyone else in the war, and crushed Hitler, not let him start World War II.  Jesus….

Response to Mein Kampf

In regards to the reading in Mein Kampf, I am most struck by Hitler’s seemingly authoritative voice over the creation of race.  He seems to speak as though he was there when the Aryan race was created, and witnessed to the “culture-founding” aspects of that culture.  He offers to evidence to support any of his grand claims about different races, he simply states them as though they are simple facts of life, like one plus one is two.  What I do find interesting about his writing is his idea that inferior races are necessary for the advancement of higher races, and his idea that man came before the animal with regards to forced manual work.  Although I don’t agree wit the idea of an “inferior” race, I do understand what’s he’s talking about with regards to the importance of the conquered to the conqueror.  Most of Europe’s progress has been at the expense of different peoples around the world.  This doesn’t mean that Europeans are better than everyone else, they just have taken advantage of other’s to increase their own lot, something that although bad, is simply a matter of life.  People will always be exploiting others, whether it is through actual slavery or paid jobs.  In no way do I agree with Mein Kampf, but I do think that Hitler perceived something important when he noted the importance of inferior races for those races that needed to progress.  

World War II connected to the Video

The fact that World War II targeted more civilians than anyone cares to think about, in my opinion, is a result of the incredibly strong feeling on both sides of absolute conviction.  In the video we watched in class, I found the last point made by the speaker extremely powerful.  He talked about the idea that human’s should never seek absolute knowledge about anything, that there must always been unknowns.  He talked about this in reference to the fact that the atrocities committed during World War II were committed by people who had no doubt in their minds they were doing the right thing (referring to leaders here, I am sure there were people who did not like killing civilians, but it did it out of fear).  That’s what has always scared me the most about World War II, and the most severe atrocities around the world.  The people who follow through with them are always convinced they’re doing the right thing.  At the Nuremberg trials, many of the Nazi officials tried to come off as though they were just following orders, as seen here, but it was clear that during the actual war they, along with Hitler, had done what they did with conviction.  No one knows what compels people to feel as though they have a concrete understanding of what’s right or wrong, just or unjust.  All we know is that the power of certainty can never be overlooked.  Such as the war in Iraq, where America was so convinced it was doing the absolutely right thing, we failed to realize that our plan was flawed in many ways.   

Middle East and World War I

As my first post about Europe’s involvement in ht Middle East during World War I, I think it’s important to note that this is in no way the first time Europe has had its hand in the Middle East…. Obviously.   When the British and French decided to create spheres of influence in the Middle East, as noted in this article by NPR here , there were clear colonial intentions.  They were not planning on using the Middle East for their own war effort, only to leave it alone once they had won, even though that’s what they promised the Arabian states that would revolt in their favor.  It’s classic European form to offer self-determination as an incentive, only to somehow get around its actual manifestation once their mission has been accomplished.  This mentality is important for understanding Europe’s role in the Middle East because it has everything to do with how the European’s treated the people living there after World War I.  Their approach was much like Britain’s approach to India; use it as a trading beacon and market for products, an instant source of cash.  What’s ironic is the fact that winning World War I didn’t make England and France realize that imperialism, which had in some ways caused World War I, was probably not a smart move.  They instead continued in their old ways, a choice that many people in the Middle East still resent.  

A summary of the entire quarter.

I've decided that for my 25th post I'm going to sum of everything we've learned since winter break.  

In essence, Europe is in many ways like a human being.  Just as Freud talks of the different phases of a child's growth process where the child is fascinated with certain aspects of their world, only to grow more and be entranced by a different thing.  Europe is steadily moving through it's life, starting at infancy and growing.  I believe that the time periods we've just studied are the adolescent and young adult phases of Europe.  There was too much testosterone in Europe during this period, just as teenage and low twenties men have too much testosterone.  It was all about dominating other people, proving you were the greatest of the pack, making sure you were on the beneficial end of every deal.  This hyper-male state lead to the two most devastating wars Europe had seen up until that point, reflecting the volatile nature of men during their college years.  Along with that, kids in their 18-24 years try many new things, which is mirrored in the creation of socialism as a true practice and ultimately Russia's transformation.  And like all human beings, kids from 18-24 are always inclined to make bad decisions, as can be witnessed in the Treaty of Versaille.  

It might seem strange, but in many ways I think it works.  Currently Europe is a middle aged man, not really the focus of attention, but still wields power in his world.

Facets of Totalitarian Government

The handout we read about Totalitarian governments during class was interesting because it basically seemed as though there was no way to have a totalitarian government while still letting the people be happy.  Because those kinds of governments rely on invading the private sector of society, it's impossible for people to enjoy their lives.  The only people who are happy with the government are those that are receiving benefits from the government, which my nature cannot be the majority, but rather an extremely small majority.  

The ironic thing is that every single totalitarian government justifies their actions with the idea that everything they do is for the good of the nation.  How can this ever be true if the majority of the nation is left unhappy on principle?  If there was some way to have a totalitarian government that actually made everyone in the nation happy, it would be lead by the most unnatural of individuals (I am referring the idea that people with great power always end up making twisted decisions), or was not totalitarian to begin with.  

In Response to Declan Conroy

In response to this.  

I think that the phenomenon that Declan is describing in his post demonstrates that power of economics to influence other parts of a countries social issues.  Such as the current war in Iraq, where people who would normally support the war don't want to pay taxes for it in a crippling economic time.  In Germany, Germans were easily convinced by the words of Hitler because of the severe economic troubles the country was facing, even though many of those people did not feel that way during times when Germany was at its strongest economic times.   The extremely nationalistic aspect to Hitler's campaign was rooted in the economic troubles the country was facing, putting Germany back on the top of the world's nations, a list compiled from economic strength.  

Response to Declan Conroy

In response to this.

I agree with the idea that democracy is a better form of government, but I don't think that Fascism is not organic, I would instead say it is organic.  People, just as Hobbes argued, are naturally bound to form a government based off of protection, giving up their right to all things to one individual who maintains their right to all things, but then becomes responsible for those under his supervision.  Fascism is exactly this, minus the voluntary part, because it is one person ruling over many for their protection.  

Fascists argue that the reason why fascism makes sense is because it doesn't make sense to have everyone have a voice in government.  I believe that this is true to some extent, especially in a time where there were many people who were still uneducated.  According to Fascists, someone who can't read or right should not get to vote over an issue they don't understand, they should instead leave up to someone who does understand, such as the dictator.  When you think about it, a Fascist government would work perfectly if the leader wasn't a crazy dictator, but instead a reasonably minded person who listened to the public when necessary.  The problem is that no one with supreme power acts in a reasonable manner.  Fascism is not the dying corpse, but simply an alternative.  I do think that democracy is indeed a better form of government, but Fascism has elements that make sense and is in some ways an organic form of government.  

Response to Charlie Koch

In response to this.  

I completely agree with Charlie's point that Wilson was a little naive when he thought that something like the 14 points would work as he supposedly intended it to work.  If you really think about it, it's possible that Wilson knew from the beginning that the 14 points wouldn't work, but decided that to keep the US, and the other major powers, in the good light he would have to at least show an effort to create a perfect world for Europe.  

I think the biggest problem with the 14 points is that Wilson expects everyone to cooperate with it because most of the points somehow involve a complete transparency when it comes to economical and political functions within a state.  I think WWI proved that no such transparency can exist in the cut throat world of European Nations.  Europe during this period was a dangerous cooking pot for adventurous leaders because of technological advancements, and that Europe was in a dog eat dog mind state that meant the only way to get ahead was to force yourself down the throats of others. 

Response to Charlie Koch

In response to this

I agree that total war in one sense total war can be beneficial because everyone in society is forced to engage in some way, and therefore makes decisions that are more informed and more in-tune with the war effort.  But, I think that the brutality and death that happens during total war, because total war is only fought over things that are truly important, and therefore countries will not surrender until they have depleted nearly all their army, does not make it beneficial for societies.  It can be very crippling for a nation to lose an entire generation of young men in a war, especially if the war is lost.  There is still death in smaller wars, but not on the scale that total war implies.  

World War I summary kind of

World War I seemed to me like a war that in many ways could have been avoided, but in many other ways was entirely unavoidable.  As we talked about in class, there were many opportunities for either Germany or Russia to take diplomatic action to prevent what happened.  Russia could have told Serbia that they weren’t in the mood to go to war against the Germans, and the Germans could have told Austria-Hungary that forcing the issue in Serbia wasn’t worth total war with Russia.  But, on the other hand, it feels as though every single nation wanted to go to war.  Germany wanted to establish itself as a world dominate power and it did not want to back down from a fight with Russia, considering it had a stronger army.  Russia wanted to make amends for the fact that the Japanese had crushed it earlier in the century, and it seemed only logical that they were on a collision course for the Germans anyway. 

            The war itself was an example of what happens when countries with large standing armies are given technology to kill, but without a concrete understanding of those weapons potential.  The use of combined arms only came about towards the end of the war, and it helped with the stalemate aspect.  Most of the war was spent in the trenches, which became one of the deadliest yet fruitless ways of fighting the war.  Although, I do find it interesting how close the Germans came from actually winning the entire war, only stopped by the fact that they spent a little too much time working the political sides of things.

            The end of the war is simply what can be seen as the allies’ attempt at completely and utterly destroying Germany, which was a flawed plan because Germany is nearly impossible to destroy.  Germany had to take blame for everything and pay for everything, sending its already chaotic economy into absolute shambles and planting the seeds of severe embitterment.  I can’t figure out whether it’s the fact that World War II happened, or the fact that the treaty of Versailles was actually as bad as it seems to be and it seems only logical that someone like Adolph Hitler, who had completely extreme ideas, was able to take power in Germany. 

            

Summary, in a sense, response, in another sense

In response to Charlie's debate summary here.

In my debate, I have the privilege of defending the octoberist side of the debate with David. I would say that truly the only thing wrong with our position is exactly what Charlie articulates, the fact that we would some how have to convince the Tsar to give up part of his power to the parliament. I think the most effective way to do this would be through the military, but the problem with this is that the Tsar has control over the military, and using the miliarty, and thus violence, would mean that we would essentially contradict our argument that revolutoin would lead to the unncessary death of Russians. In the end, I think that the octoberist best option would be taking control of the process of selecting the next Tsar, which would give them the power to get someone more favorable to a consitutional monarchy into power. Who this would be in Russia, I have no idea, considering every single Tsar I've ever heard of in Russia was an egotistical and self-centered ruler.
I agree that the Bolsheviks have the best argument out of the to vik groups, because the Mensheviks just have a terrible position, considering they intend to wait for Russia to change, which would require hoping the Tsar doesn't get word of revolution for a long time, which is unlikely if not impossible. The idea of immediate revolution has the most persuasive tone, and I think that the "revolution is anti-Russian" is only valid if the ends don't out weigh the means, which I think would not be true in Russia.

Nietzsche and Freud

Nietzsche and Freud combined to create some of the most powerful philosophy in the history of the world, and both created theirs at a time period that was essentially a fertile growing ground for contextually bizarre thought. What I like most about Nietzsche, and I think has the most impact on how I approach life, is his idea that humans have to pursue their own course of creativity and throw tradition out of the window. I can’t really explain it, but this resonates with me strongly because I always get frustrated when people discredit things based simply off the fact that they’ve never happened before. I always tell myself that every single good idea that has ever been thought of was probably considered stupid by nine out of the ten people who first heard it. I agree with Cas, though, when he mentioned the fact that Nietzsche under estimates the power of community for an individual. Identity is something only present when other identities are involved, so it’s impossible for a person to truly create something unique by himself without automatically having it examined in the context of everything else, which is some sense ruins the individuality of the object. Humans are by nature social animals, and it’s hard to imagine a world where every person is pursuing something completely individual. My favorite aspect of Freud is his emphasis that we are driven by subconscious drives that we have no power over or knowledge of. It’s interesting to think about our bodies as ninety nine percent things we can’t control and one percent things we are able to understand and control. I think that the dream aspect of his philosophy is a little weird because I don’t understand how our subconscious would be so hard to understand when we’re awake, yet would present itself so clearly while we’re asleep. I think dreams are simply manifestations of our conscious mind distorting our current lives. When someone dreams about sex, I don’t think this is the subconscious sexual drive, but rather the brain, which probably thinks about sex when the person is conscious, distorting or exaggerating the conscious thoughts.

Darwinsim

Darwin’s theory of evolution and the subsequent idea of social Darwinism, are interesting to look at because Darwin’s theories were blatantly taken to mean something different from what Darwin intended. Darwin’s theory is based off of the idea that certain animals in a species are born with bizarre and inexplicable gene mutations that change their physical condition in some way. This change either helps them survive, or not, and those that are born with the gene mutation geared towards better survival are more likely to reproduce, thus changing the species and forcing the worse off of the two genotypes to become extinct. This is a natural process, and all species in the world are subject to it. Darwin’s ideas were controversial because he was essentially claiming the humans came from lower forms of apes, and that over time the human race was created because we were better at surviving than other apes. For obvious reasons people had a problem with this, considering most people did not want to believe that humans were not somehow unique in special, but simply part of a chain of evolution. What I find interesting about Darwin’s theory is what it means for the future of humans right now. I feel the humans have reached a point in life where we have invented enough things to keep people that would have otherwise died alive, so our population is simply increasing, instead of staying the same, Darwin’s theory had the idea of worse genotypes becoming extinct, but this idea no longer holds true for humans. If humans descended from apes, it only makes sense that there will be a future species descended from humans. What this species will be like, I don’t know, but I am not sure if there will be one.
Social Darwinism takes the idea of evolution and uses it as an excuse for people in positions of power to take advantage of those who don’t have power. It’s the idea that because someone was blessed with being able to doing something better than someone else, they have the right to exploit those under them. Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with a better species taking advantage of a worse species; his theory is based off the idea that the better species has a better chance at surviving, and therefore will reproduce more. It’s interesting to think that if you consider this aspect, those in the position of power, which are few, have the natural predator of the powerless mass, who had more power than the few rich if they choose to use it. This would mean that out of all the rich people, the ones most likely to survive, and therefore born with the better trait, would be those that catered to the powerless and kept them happy, and therefore no inclined towards revolution.

Three Russian Ideas

The three Russian stances towards revolution, represented by the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and the Octoberists, all have one thing in common. They all want to make Russia a better place for the common people, whether it by universal suffrage, better working hours, or simply limiting the power of the Tsar to protect the rights of individuals. The Bolsheviks present the most compelling argument, seeing as they strike the chord of revolution immediately, even if it means the death of innocent people for the sake of an entire nation. Ultimately, I feel that this strategy is the only one that would work in Russia, considering Tsars have never been inclined to give any power to the people, especially the common people. The only way to stop something like that is full force revolution when the Tsar is least expecting it, which would mean as soon as possible. The Mensheviks also call for revolution, but the fact that they see it as a gradual thing inhibits their ability to make a persuasive argument. In my opinion, hoping for gradual revolution in Russia would be like hoping spring’s eternal, seeing as Russia has historically crushed the first sings of revolution with such brutal force that our book continues to describe their army as crushing other peoples. As soon as the Tsar got word of revolution, it would be over, and the Mensheviks would be left to wonder why they hadn’t acted faster. The Octoberists make a good argument, but they lack a fundamental principle to changing government, which is that you have to get the people who are enjoying things the way they are to change. Calling for a constitutional monarchy would require someone convincing the Tsar that he should share power with the parliament, and considering the Tsar has power over the army, this is a very unlikely idea. I think that this dynamic in Russia speaks to the complexity Russia faced when it approached its government. The most important thing in my opinion, regardless of which stance is taken, is that Russians have to realize that they are Russians, not western Europeans. They don’t have to do what France or England did, Russia is different from these nations and always has been.

The Second Revolution

The second industrial revolution can be seen as the explosion of such thing as steel, electricity, and chemicals, but these three things are not the only important aspects to the time period. For me, the most important part was the creation of the corporation, because this reinforced the drive for capital that is important for booming economies, such as those in the time period. In my opinion, Rockefeller was an astounding businessman who managed to create the biggest oil company in the United States through his ability to vertically consolidate the oil industry in such a profound way. He literally owned everything in the process, which meant that he could control the prices on every step, allowing him to make huge profits. Some people many think that he is a horrible man because essentially destroyed competition and took advantage of the government, but I think that he shouldn’t be held accountable for his ability to manipulate the system to his favor. Had be blatantly broken laws at every corner, he definitely should have been punished, but all he did was take what was given to him and turn it into a huge economical empire. That being said, I do feel that it’s important to limit the size of huge corporations to keep the market from turning into the playground for a few extremely large firms, but I think it’s unfair to discredit the genius of someone like Rockefeller, who took lemons and made zillions of dollars off of them.

Summaryish

In response to this summary, and in general the Boer War.

I believe that the abandonment of civilized war practices during the Boer War is a completely natural consequence of territorial war.  When the British began fighting the Boers for Boer territory, it was obvious that the only way to win was to destroy the native population.  This is evident in that fact that every single imperial action initiated by Europe resulted in a death toll for the native population, mostly in inhumane ways because the tie to one’s land is one of the hardest bonds to break.  Holding a nation to war standards when that nation is trying to conquer territory inhabited by rebellious natives is hard because people defending their land will stop at nothing to hold their land.  I believe it’s a natural consequence of war to have a inclination towards brutality when dealing with the enemy.  

The Scramble for Africa

The scramble for Africa put me in a position where I felt a strong contradiction inside myself.  On the one hand, I was impressed by the power of European powers.  In less than half a century, ninety percent of Africa, a huge continent, was put under European control.  European might was at its most prominent point, allowing them to do what they wanted when they wanted.  Granted, this might was mostly evident in the fact that Europeans had far superior technology that allowed them to slaughter native populations out of existence, but this aside, I still think it’s a testament to the vigor of European ideals of imperialism.  On the other hand, I am absolutely sickened by the way in which the Europeans went about tearing apart Africa.  They basically enslaved all the Africans without any moral regard for anything except their own profit.  Europeans proved to the rest of the world that their racial prejudices and ideals were founded in arrogance and brute force.  The effects of the scramble for Africa are still being played out today, and it’s truly disheartening to see the ways in which Europe has hurt all the nations in Africa.  This conflict is something that most Europeans felt at the time, seeing as they were going into foreign lands and conquering the people for the sake of humanity’s progress.  Some people fought for the rights of those being subjected to Europe’s rule, and some blindly supported Europe’s power and right to control the world.  Both sides had evidence, and both sides felt they were right, creating a division that only deepened debate over Imperialism.   

Chinese Imperialism

The British sphere of influence in China is an example of the harmful affects of imperialism on the territories being turned into subservient populations.  The British went into China when China was politically unstable, causing a growth in tension that the Chinese government was unable to accommodate.  The British, being free trade zealots, argued with China over the Chinese limiting rules of British influence in Chinese trade, a self-centered move that reflects the arrogance of British imperialism.  The fact that Britain had a net lose in China should be a credit to China, who managed to keep the most powerful nation in the world from controlling them with bully tactics and an egotistic sense of right.  But, Opium kept Britain from being held to only Hong Kong, allowing them turn their net lose into a net gain in China.  They set up the triangle trade between India, China, and Britain, using the Chinese addiction to Opium to the Brit’s advantage.  Had the Chinese been successful in cracking down on Opium and British expansion, they could have survived the harmful effects of British influence, but unfortunately the Chinese were forced to go to war with the most powerful nation in the world and subsequently forced to give even more undeserved rights to British traders.  This move, helped by unhealthy competition in Europe, sparked other European nations to get part of the Chinese trade as well, causing the decline of China as a prominent power, and cementing Europe’s control over trade across the world.  

Week Consensus

I would have to say that at the end of the week, the most common thread throughout class would have to have been the different ways in which revolution affected Europe.  Granted, this is a very large heading, but I think that its vagueness is an indicator to it’s vastness and complicatedness.  On one hand you had successful revolutions, like Germany, Italy, or Greece.  On the other hand you have failed ones, like Poland or the different sects in the Austria Empire.  This combined with the varying factors of economic dissatisfaction and nationalistic sentiment, along with the context of the current ruler and his ability to deal with these revolutions, made for setting the revolutions in certain categories difficult, if not impossible.  To further the complexity, all this had to be combined with growing industrialization and dates, which seemed to create a haze around everything occurring in Europe, making it hard to see what exactly happened when in comparison with other events, which would have required a unearthly amount of note taking.  In the end, I think the lesson I learned the most about both chapters was that Europe is very fond of revolutions, and that these revolutions always have involve some sort of combination of economic, political, and cultural aspects.  I don’t it’s unfair to just see this period of history as a tumultuous period involving nation building, industrialization, and reform, and nothing more in depth than that.  This might not sit well with some of the history fanatics, but I think the entire period is way too confusing to be deemed anything else.  

Russia’s Problem is a Pattern

The fact that the abolition of serfdom in Russia didn’t really change the landscape of the country is evidence of a greater theme in Modern European History I have noticed.  Socioeconomic class is something that has changed very little over time, although the names for the classes have.  The transformation of English people working on a subplots under the control of a large landowner to the factory worker who was under an equally oppressive boss is simple a change in location and title.  In Russia, serfdom was abolished, but the serfs were simply transformed into impoverished land tenants that might have even gotten it worse off than their early life.  On one hand, I think that the pattern of socioeconomic stagnation could be countered with the fact that there were people who moved up in the world, but I think this argument doesn’t really apply to what I am talking about.  Sure some people moved up, but the relationship between the ruling class and the working class has never changed, even though both the ruling and the working class have changed locations or have gone through periods of supposed reform.  I think this pattern is evidence of an even larger pattern, which is the fact that human beings are naturally inclined to breaking into two groups, those who lead and wield power, and those that follow.  

Germany's Unification

What I find the most interesting about Bismarck’s unification of Germany is that he managed to do all of it while keeping the rest of Europe at bay and while synthesizing top down reform with nationalistic sentiment.  I feel as though if you had asked each European power whether or not they wanted to see a large nation just as powerful, if not more, than their own nation, most of them, if not all of them, would have said no.  Yet, despite this, Bismarck’s diplomatic skills and timing made the unification of Germany possible.  England and Russia were busy with the after math of the Crimean War, Italy had yet to come into complete formation, and France and Austria had to fight wars with Bismarck that made both of those countries look foolish.  This incredible circumstance, along with the growing feeling of nationalism among German people, helped create what would become one of the greatest powers in Europe.  Bismarck had to utilize this nationalism in very specific ways, using both wars with France and Austria as perfect opportunities to strengthen national feelings.  As if over night, the German nation arose from the Rhineland and would forever have a place in history.  But, all this incredible circumstance has to be understood within the context that early Germany, which consisted of separated states, was already an economic force.  Bismarck should be handed a medal for his skills, but he was also provided the perfect broken nation to unite.  

Response #3

In response to this.

Although it is true that a majority of the nation has lived in America for at least two generations (arbitrary amount of time, but I am not sure how many generations defines an immigrant family versus a native one), I think that Americans still view the immigrant story as one that is truly American. I do not consider myself an immigrant, but I still feel as though America is always being changed by immigrants, and because I am an American, this immigration becomes a small part of me. This small part is something that all american have in common. 
With regards to your comments on an American culture, I would say that I do not dispute the presence of an American culture, but that I believe this culture is constantly changing, and therefore hard to pin point. Yes, TV is different in other nations, but in the matter of 5 years TV has changed in the US alone. When you watch a show that aired a while back, it has a whole different feel from a show today. Both feelings conjured by these shows are steeped in American culture, but because our culture has evolved over time, the feelings are different.

USA is number one

Is the United States of America a nation?  It’s true that there is no real tangible border between it and Canada.  There is no mountain range, no lakeshore, nor a huge crater.  It’s true that American culture is hard to define as one thing, considering the diversity of people in its borders.  It’s also true that not everyone agrees with everyone else, and there is not necessarily a common heritage, seeing as how many people descended from immigrants who came from different countries.  But, does America need a definable border with Canada?  No, because as a people we have not deemed it necessary.  If no one finds fault with the line that exists, then the line doesn’t need a physical backing to be legitimate.  Does America need a definable culture?  No, it doesn’t because Americans enjoy the freedom that an ever-changing culture allows.  To be in one neighborhood with a certain characteristic, only to move onto another neighborhood with a completely different characteristic, is embraced by the American people.  If the people enjoy it, it does not require uniformity, and essentially acts as a culture anyway.  Does everyone need to share a heritage?  In America the shared heritage is the immigrant story.  People may not have the same birthplace, but the fact that they all immigrate to America serves to bind these people together in a common feeling.  America may not have what many people consider necessary for a nation, but it doesn’t matter because the American people embrace this notion.  If Americans embrace it, it becomes truth.  

Nationalism

Nationalism, although divisive, was a powerful tool in bringing people together for a common cause.  This cause was of course focused around the creation of a nation, or a state that embodied a group of people’s ethnicity, history, and culture.  Common language was not a prerequisite for nation building, as could be seen in Italy where people spoke entirely different languages and lived near each other.  Class was not a prerequisite, for all classes had their share in nationalistic fervor, whether it meant through organic societal traits or a geo-political necessity.  Because certain aspects to populations were not required to create a nation, many diverse places became enchanted with the idea of creating a state.  But, there were two things that kept these places from ever reaching their goal.  The first was the oppression of hopeful states by larger already established states that had their hand in the spheres of many populations.  Poland, for example, was stuck, and had been stuck for a long time, under Russia’s influence.  Russia’s control meant that a huge army crushed nationalistic ideals whenever they arose.  The same occurrence could be seen in Northern Italy, where the Austria-Hungary Empire crushed the Italian army once the French stopped supporting Italy for fear of angering French Catholics through an attack on the pope.  The other reason why nationalism failed was the inherent problem in nationalism.  People began to break themselves down into smaller and more specific groups, which kept populations that might have had a chance at nationalism from ever truly coming together.  This could be seen with Slav’s, who, once decidedly put into a Slav category, divided into smaller and more specific Slavic cultures, which meant that each group got weaker.   Nationalism is a double edged sword, a destructive and constructive force.  

Response #2

In response to this.

I would disagree with your argument that human beings are naturally inclined towards freedom. It is not part of the human instinct to live in a world where anything is possible. I agree with Hobbes when is comes to a subject such as this. Hobbes argues that in a state of nature (a state of freedom), people are inevitably going to go for the throats of others. In order to protect ourselves, or as you mention the human instinct for self-preservation, we form a social contract that limits what is possible. Maybe through rhetoric we are consciously inclined towards the ideal of absolute freedom, but I believe the instinctually human beings do not gravitate towards freedom, but instead create limits. I would also disagree with the idea that individual interest is generated by the instinctual self. I believe that individual interest is generated not by instinct, but instead by conscious thinking. Instinct generates the universal interests because instinctually all humans are the same. Every human searches for food when they are hungry, an action that is instinctual and universal.

Response #1

In response to  this post.

I agree with you Charlie, and I would also like to add some more reasons why I do not think there will be a worker revolution in America anytime soon. I believe that the idea of private property is an implicit and explicit quality to American culture, and has always been since the founding fathers preached life, liberty, and property. Marx claims that the property of the working class has all but been abolished, and I would disagree. There are still many workers who own their own property, something they will not give up for an idea with a mysterious and unreliable future. Were workers to have absolutely nothing to lose, they would entertain the thought of revolution. But, many workers still posses a sense of ownership with where they live, and therefore would not be willing to dissolve all private property into communal property. 
Secondly, I believe that there is no way American workers will ever agree to move as one body. As this past election clearly shows, the country is still divided when it comes to national decisions. Getting every worker in America on the same page would require the most dire of times and a hopelessness that would be impossible to achieve. It's part of American history and culture to disagree, and I see no future where every American sees eye to eye with his neighbor.

Marx Reading combined with Romanticism Reading 725-732

Marx’s brand of socialism is flawed.  He decrees that overtime, capitalism will fall by the wayside through its inability to be sustained without constantly discovering new markets, inventing new technologies, or cannibalizing old firms.  The working class will rise upon its dissatisfaction and take control, eliminating the inequality of classes and establishing a communist nation.  But, Marx sees this as a worldwide occurrence where every nation seemingly does this at the same time and suddenly the world in transformed.  As Romantics clearly show, national pride was on the rise through the work of artists from nations like Germany or England.  It would seem strange that every worker would throw to the side their national pride for the greater good of the world, a world full of citizens that have always been in contest with those same workers.  In Communism, Marx assumes that the working class won’t have power struggles within itself after it has taken control.  This is an impossible reality because workers will naturally be inclined to try to put themselves and their natural culture above those from other nations.  Just because another man also helps to build the same machine does not mean that they will automatically be friends, especially when long rivalries, like those between France and England, have existed.   

MEH Reading 709-717

The destruction and violence that occurred during the French Revolution had a huge impact on the thinkers of the early nineteenth century.  Men had died in huge numbers for ideals that had never truly come into existence, and Europe had been thrust into turmoil over the passion of one country’s people.  Leaders, such as Metternich, became concerned with making sure nothing of that sort could ever happen again.  They saw revolution as a guaranteed predecessor to war, something they wall wanted to avoid considering the negative economic effects and all the violence that had occurred during the eighteenth century.  Thus, the name of the game for the Congress in Vienna was to establish strong national powers that were not in conflict with each other and had the ability to put down revolution where it arose.  Through this action though, the main European powers sowed the seeds for more resistance.  By attempting to restore strict control over their individual kingdoms, national leaders came into conflict with people who wanted to move forward with political thought.  Through the industrial revolution people had become more in tune with the political scene around them, and had decided to take more of an active role.  The Decembrists in Russia were young military leaders who had helped in the Napoleonic wars and saw themselves as enlightened individuals who could liberate Europe.  Their ideals conflicted with those of the Tsar Nicholas, and their revolution was brutally crushed.  Although European leaders attempted to restore the conservative and dominating presence of government that had once existed in Europe, they also laid the foundations for building revolutionary thought that was helped along by the industrial revolution.