The Monroe Document vs. The United States' Current Foreign Policies

In history class, we've been learning about the Monroe Doctrine, which was a document that stated America’s foreign affairs.  I read an article about a US affair that is going on today to compare the reactions of the United States. The article I read was about protests that are going on against “Plan Mexico”, which is a billion dollar cooperation agreement between the US and Mexico.  People also protested the 43 Mexican students who went missing in September.  According to the article, people are opposed to Plan Mexico because “releasing these funds would send the message that the United States condones the grave human rights violations committed in Mexico, including torture, rape, killings, and enforced disappearances”.  The US looked into withholding funds in 2010, but continued to fund the fight the Drug War.  If this was occurring in 1823, the United States’ involvement would be very different.  The first idea of the Monroe Doctrine states that if other countries leave the United States alone, then the US will leave other countries alone.  Since Mexico is not interfering with the United States, we wouldn’t be involved with the Drug Wars.  The second point of the Monroe Doctrine is non-colonization in the Western Hemisphere, and Mexico isn’t setting up colonies in the United States, so the United States wouldn’t send money or invade Mexico.  The third and final rule of the Monroe Doctrine is non-intervention on the US’ part.  The US would not give any money because that could be intervention. The United States’ reaction to the Drug War is very different from the US’ reaction to foreign wars in 1823.      

Moreno, Carolina. "43 Cities Stage Symbolic Protest Demanding U.S. Stop Funding Mexican Drug War." Huffington Post. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ustired2-protests_n_6264530.html>

Race and it's Affect on the Past and the Present

The Revolution I studied was the Gran Colombia revolution.  The revolution was led by Simon Bolivar, and made the Republica de Colombia a free republic.  Over the course of nearly twenty years, Bolivar got political control of Caracas, lost power, and ultimately took Venezuela and Ecuador from Spanish control.  This revolution was not so much about a rift between races as it was about cultures coming together.  Bolivar convinced his fellow South Americans to get rid of a common enemy; the Spanish.  Spain controlled most of South America, but when the South Americans came together and realized that they could work as one to get rid of the enemy, they fought for and won their freedom.

A recent article by NPR’s Eleanor Beardsley reveal issues with race that occur in the world today.  With the holidays approaching and celebrations occurring, Beardsley focuses on a particular Dutch tradition that has been quite a controversial topic these past few years. The article is about Dutch Christmas parades that include Santa Claus and his helper, Swarte Piete, also known as Black Pete.  People dress up in blackface and march through the streets, an act that is viewed as extremely racist in the United States.  Some debate that this act is blatantly racist, while others say Pete is a beloved holiday tradition that is in no way racist. I think that this article shows that race continues to affect national identity, because although Black Pete is a holiday tradition, his character is very racist. I think that there are better ways to celebrate the holidays, and while there are some who may not view it as racist or offensive there are ways to fix race issues and change certain problems.

Beardsley, Eleanor. "Santa's Black-Faced Helpers Are Under Fire In The Netherlands." NPR.org. 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/12/01/367704573/santas-black-faced-helpers-are-under-fire-in-the-netherlands>.

The Congress of Vienna

Throughout the course of history, many leaders have faced rebellion and revolutions. In these circumstances,their power has been threatened. But what do people in power do when their power is threatened?  In the case of Europe circa 1814, a meeting was held to discuss what should be done about Napoleon.  Napoleon had be exiled to the Island of Elba, and now the extensive French territory had to be returned to the other countries. The Congress of Vienna had to decide what to do about the land.  This gave the congress an opportunity to rearrange Europe while making sure that no country could ever take control of as much land a Napoleon did. In class, we read three situations and choices for each situation.  The problems were actual questions the congress faced, and one of the choices was what they chose. 

One way the other leaders protected their power was through the Holy Alliance.  The Holy Alliance gave monarchs the Divine Right to rule.  This means that God gave them their power.  Since they were directly linked to God, any revolution was treason and therefore against God.  People would not want to go against God, so the number of revolutions would minimize, and the leaders could maintain their power. The majority of the Congress of Vienna accepted and enforced the Holy Alliance.  England, however, did not follow it and ruled the same way it had before.  For the most part, the Holy Alliance was a useful way to prevent rebellion and keep leaders powerful.

I think that overall, the Holy Alliance was useful for it’s purpose, and it was a better, non-violent form of suppressing rebellion.  Rather than putting strict enforcements on the people or using violence to prevent revolution, it scared the people out of revolting.  People would want to follow God and not go against God, so they would not want to go against their leader. At the same time, I think it is important for people in power to realize when the people are unhappy.  If your country is rebelling against you, it is probably necessary to listen to their needs and try to make a change. Rather than sit back and try to prevent all revolutions, leaders should be willing to give up some of their power to benefit the people.  

The Congress of Vienna.
http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-115752/The-great-powers-of-Europe-meet-for-the-Congress-of

Napoleon Bonaparte and His Influence on Europe

Napoleon is often remembered as a strong, and often power-hungry leader who conquered as much land as he could.  While this has some truth, Napoleon also greatly impacted Europe politically, economically, and socially.  Napoleon impacted the world socially by changing how people view other classes.  Before Napoleon, only upper class people were recognized and had good jobs.  He thought that people should be rewarded based on their skills, not social class.  He spread meritocracy through the countries he invaded.  Joel Tyler Headley, a 19th century author, once described Napoleon's beliefs of meritocracy in his book, Napoleon and his Marshals,“as a friend of human liberty, and eager to promote the advancement of the race, by opening the field to talent and genius, however low their birth, he was infinitely superior to all the sovereigns”.  Napoleon also banished titles of nobility and serfdom.  He didn’t care about classes and influential families, he cared about skill, a trait that we still value today.

Napoleon also affected Europe and the countries he conquered politically.  When he took control of Egypt, he reorganized the government and changed the political structure.  Napoleon also was a supporter of the French Revolution, and he helped change the political system of France.  He supported Nationalism, which lead to a wave of Nationalism throughout Europe.  He believed that Nationalism brought people together, and it made them stronger as a country.  Marshal Michel Ney described Napoleons political power in a speech to soldiers by saying, “The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights”.  Napoleon didn’t force people to suppress their rights, like a few other leaders. He also influenced the governments of other countries and spread ideas.

Europe was also greatly impacted by Napoleon’s economic changes.  Napoleon controlled prices, encouraged the growth and creation of industries, and improved the infrastructure by building roads and canals.  This improved the quality of life for many and caused some businesses to earn more money.  He also established the Bank of France.  While this mostly affected France, it served as a model for other banks and economic systems.  Under Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule, France’s budget was balanced, and massive work programs were created.  Although Napoleon Bonaparte is viewed as a greedy, selfish leader who took control of countries and started wars, he impacted Europe socially, politically, and economically, and made changes to pave the way for generations to come.

Link to Map: http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site21/napoleon%20web%20page.htm 

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism: Which is Better?

In class, we were given Starbursts.  Most people (including me) got three, but three people got around ten Starbursts. Then, we played “Rock, Paper, Scissors” with other people in the class. The loser gave a Starburst to the winner.  Some people got extremely competitive, and were very protective of their Starbursts.  In some cases, people would steal Starbursts, use violence, or hide with their candy.  Personally, I was kind of glad to get out because the activity was a little too crazy for me, and also I didn’t really think that fighting for a piece of candy was worth it.  After, our teacher collected all the Starbursts and gave everyone three pieces.  The people who had a lot of candy were unhappy, and the people who didn't have any candy were glad to be equal.  This activity started out as Capitalism, and it ended as socialism.  

Karl Marx believed that eventually the poor people would become angry with the unfairness of society.  He predicted that they would want to be equal to the rich people in society, and they would have a revolution.  The government would then take control of the situation by taking hold of all the property and redistributing throughout the social classes. This would be called socialism.  Eventually, the people would learn how to share among each other and no government would be needed, resulting in Communism.  A man by the name of Adam Smith created a mix of Capitalism and Socialism called the Invisible Hand. Every part of society would be the same as Capitalism except the market. The government would let the businesses and people run the economy. Eventually, the markets could efficiently run themselves and prices would even out. Unfortunately, there would often be pauses and the government would have to step in and regulate prices.  

   In a class discussion, all forms of government were discussed. Some felt that Capitalism was very "everyone for themselves".  However, they did not think Communism was a good idea. They agreed that humans are too greedy for Communism to really work, and it would lead right back to the beginning.  It was decided that Socialism is better than Communism. But, people said that Socialism takes away the natural right to want to succeed. Hard-working people would still only do as well as lazy people.  

Between Communism and the Invisible Hand, I think neither is a good solution.  Both end up needing the government’s assistance.  Also, they have never actually been achieved.  However, I think that the Invisible Hand would work better than Communism because most people are too greedy for Communism.  Overall, I feel that a slight mix between Socialism and Capitalism.  People can make a lot of their own decisions, and there is not an extremely large gap between rich and poor.  There also isn’t a complete feeling of having to fight for yourself which can sometimes be seen in Capitalism.  Although good in theory, most government-less societies never work.    

The Luddites

The Luddites were skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans who followed the mythical figure of Ned Ludd.  The were angry because factories began to hire inexperienced people to complete the task that typically only a skilled artisan would be able to do.  The Luddites responded to this injustice by attacking machines and factories.  They would also set fire to the factories.  Contrary to popular belief, the Luddites were not anti-technology.  While they were destroying factories and machines, the Luddites would dress up as women.  This helped people agree with the Luddites and sympathize with them.  In order to show the perspective of a Luddite, the following paragraph is a mock primary source letter.

Dear cousin,

As you know, I have been having a difficult time making money recently.  I was an artisan, but now no one needs my skills.  The cheap factories hires anyone willing to work.  Jobs that once required skill and experience are being done by anyone and everyone.  Now, i cannot find money because no one wants to pay more money for an artisan.  A group called the Luddites also feels this way.  They break into factories and destroy the machines and the factory.  The destruction makes me feel uneasy, but i can’t help but want to join the Luddites.  Change must happen, and if some vandalism is what it takes to bring the change, then it may be worth it.  The more I think about it, the more I see myself becoming an artisan.  

Luddites breaking a machine in a factory. 

America vs. England: Conditions in the Mills

Although the Industrial Revolution was a time of wonderful inventions, it had its drawbacks.  Mills in both England and America were dangerous, and conditions were truly horrendous.  However, England clearly had the shorter end of the stick, and therefor had even worse conditions than America.  Accidents were unfortunately common in mills, and although America had its share of gory and heart wrenching experiences, the worst and most frequent accidents almost always took place in England.  A British doctor by the name of Michael Ward recalled the injuries, stating that, “...the muscles, and the skin [were] stripped down to the bone, and in some instances a finger or two might be lost”.  Fatalities were also an occasional occurrence in the mills, and they were horrifying to watch.  Mary Richards, a ten year old who worked in an English mill was killed when her apron was caught in a machine.  Instantly, the gears pull her in the machine, and what came next was a sickening sight.  One boy, Robert Blincoe, who was seven at the time remembered seeing “the bones of her arms, legs, thighs, etc. successively snap asunder, crushed, seemingly, to atoms, as the machinery whirled her round, and drew tighter and tighter her body within the works, her blood was scattered over the frame and streamed upon the floor, her head appeared dashed to pieces”.  

Accidents were not the only downside of the mills.  Food and living conditions were also less than desirable.  The English workers ate right at their machines, and by account of Sarah Carpenter, “Our common food was oatcake. It was thick and coarse. This oatcake was put into cans. Boiled milk and water was poured into it. This was our breakfast and supper. Our dinner was potato pie with boiled bacon it”.  In a video, it was said that the workers were given food “...of a bluish complexion”.  Sometimes, food would have pieces of wool on it, and the workers had to pick it off.  In America, however, the mill girls left the mills to eat, and they were provided meals by their boarding houses.  The meals were of a much better quality than the English meals, with meat and some flavorings.  The American girls also lived in boarding houses with a few other girls.  By contrast, most british factory workers lived in slums, which were filthy, crowded areas that were barely livable.  Clearly, England faced the worst of the conditions, with the quality of life being uncomparable to American living.  When American mills suffered a downfall, the conditions still never plummeted as low as England had.   

Efficiency, Technology... and Slums?: The Not-so-Positive Effects of the Industrial Revolution.

To many, the Industrial Revolution was a new and exciting time filled with big changes and new technologies, and for the most part, it was.  However, what most don’t know is that living conditions reached an all time low as efficiency reached a new high.  In fact, you could say that Great Britain was more like “Not So Great Britain” to the many workers and poor people who lived during the Industrial Revolution. My group’s museum project was all about the unfortunate conditions that many people faced.  For our documents, we had two pictures, one depicting a Victorian slum, and the other showing a view of Manchester.  Another document was Professor Michael Faraday’s opinion on the filth of the Thames River. There were also two opinions on Industrialization, along with a map of the large Industrialized cities in Great Britain, and a table showing the income versus the cost of living.  We came up with our title, “Not So Great Britain” because we thought that it emphasized how living in Great Britain at the time was very difficult.  I hope that visitors learn the negative effects of Industrialization.  The factories were mostly along the Thames River, and they dumped all the waste into the river.  This caused the river to become extremely polluted.  I also hope that visitors learn about the overcrowding in the poor sections that created slums.  The mills were dirty and dangerous, but the streets were even worse.  

Group A’s topic was weaving.  I learned that while spinning looms were improving, London became the first city to reach a population of one million.  A quote on their poster was “...textile mills became over crowded with workers and big machinery causing an extremely dangerous workplace…”.  Group B taught us about railroads and their impacts on everyday life.  In order to expand railroads in certain areas, the land was blown out to create a flatter terrain.  Railroads also made travelling easier, and let people go to different parts of the country easily and quickly.  “The Devastation of Child Labor” by group D depicted the harsh reality of child labor.  Shockingly, 50% of the children working in factories were under the age of ten, and most children were sent away by their parents at eight years old.  Group D also showed how children were treated like animals, with heavy loads and hard work conditions.  The final group, “Products of a Dark Time” also wrote about slavery.  The Industrial Revolution made slavery a big problem, because many companies used slave labor to create materials without paying anyone.  Texas actually had around 3,500,000 slaves, which shows how large the problem really was.