RE#9: WW22 - Rise/Fall of World Communism

I'm not gonna lie - I've put off blogging about this chapter for a while because it's, well, about communism. Not the most exciting topic when you try to read about it and teach it to yourself. The class discussions, however, brought some life into the idea, especially when we talked about how countries who didn't take the appropriate "steps" (feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism) to a communistic economy and society failed. It was interesting to view Marx's theory through this perspective, that countries who skip capitalism aren't successful because their people haven't developed a class consciousness that develops through a capitalist economy.

Since America is currently capitalist, and with Obama's new healthcare plan that definitely acts as a transition into a more socialist economy, it seems we are on the right track. Should we decide to turn communist, Marx would be supportive because we have correctly progressed into that system. But there is no way that America would turn completely communist. We are too individualist - freedom and liberty are values that cannot be compromised in a country like America. I think our "utopia" lies halfway between capitalism and socialism - capitasocialism.

Back to the reading. The section on Communist Feminism was pretty interesting. Women of the 2010's, in America especially, have come a long way from the traditional days. The great thing about the WWI was how beneficial it was in terms of the liberation of women. I guess it takes a world war for the world to realize how capable women really are. Hmm... :) Things like the end of concubines, permission of women to remarry, and allowed maternity leave for workers - it's sad that there was once a time when women were deprived of these basic human rights.

One of my friends constantly makes it a point that whoever she marries MUST let her keep her maiden name as her last name instead of taking her husband's surname. And I don't blame her - her last name is verrry unique. And it is allowable/legal for women to do that - I guess she owes that to Communist Feminism and WWI. I'll be sure to tell her that tomorrow when I see her.

RE#8: WW21 - Collapse/Recovery of Europe

I've read over and over again how the Europeans successfully conquered this country and that country, but it wasn't until we did the map activity on Monday that I visually saw how dominant they were on a global scale: they literally took over the entire world, marking each continent with some European ideal or belief. That left me wondering - if I were the most dominant and powerful country in the world (particularly the British and the French) and I've just finished dominating all the other countries in the world, what do I do now? The sensible answer would be to just... leave everything be. I'd be content with my achievements and work on my own country's happiness and success. I guess that wasn't a viable option for the Europeans back in the day, since they obviously chose to further perturb neighboring nations with their territorial, political, and economic greed. And like the analogy used in class, a full house facilitates angry siblings, especially if all the siblings are power hungry monsters who aren't willing to share their toys.

A positive thing came out of World War I - female involvement. Since all the men were gone fighting the war, women were left with the responsibility to carry on their work. Women even had the opportunity to rebel and shake up tradition, with their new social opportunities, new fashion styles, and taking part in voting. It's hard to say that without the war and this shift in perspective and lifestyle, that women would not still be stuck in the household and reduced to childbearing/housecleaning machines.

I particularly enjoyed reading the section of World War II. Not because I enjoy or encourage the suffering and pain of the war, but because of how close this war hits to home. Literally. WW2 officially started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. And Pearl Harbor is literally my backyard, specifically the backyard of my high school. Every morning of my junior/senior year, I would park my car in the back parking lot and take the scenic walking route on my way to homeroom. I would take a few minutes to just stare into the harbor, with all the navy ships and the shouts and noise from the workers. While it may seem like just a bunch of old, rusting ships to the rest of my classmates, I always stare at that harbor in awe - knowing that 60 years ago, all hell broke loose on these very waters and grounds. Within a few minutes, bombs exploded, fires ensued, soldiers died for our freedom. Such epic history lay right before me. It's such a shame that the kids my age don't appreciate things like that.

By the way, the identity of Russia always confused me. Are they part of Europe or part of Asia? They way I see it, they seem much more closer to the Europeans in terms of physical features, cultural practices, and phonetics of their language. This is similar to the question I raised in an earlier blog about whether the Philippines is part of Asia or considered a Pacific Island. The dictionary describes Russia as "part of Northern Asia and eastern Europe", but I think they should officially list it as a European nation. Plus it would save the dictionary printers a few words, and therefore save ink, and therefore save money. And super therefore, the govt can use that extra money to fix the residence halls on this campus. Hey, positive thinking :) But really, I don't understand what the big deal is, or perhaps there was/is some major tension between Russia with both Asia and Europe that they don't want to fully associate themselves with either one.

RE#7: WW20 - Colonial Encounters

As I continue reading these chapters, I realize more and more what horrible things Europeans have done in the past. Not to be an anti or racist, it's just the way the history book explains it in reference to their colonialization/industrial/trade acts - when you read page after page of how Europeans brought diseases killing 90% of native populations, introduced alcohol and killer machinery whose smoke contributes greatly to the depleting ozone layer problem we have today, and their (somewhat selfish?) desire for political, territorial, religious conquest resulted in massacres, wars, drastic demographic changes ... it's hard NOT to say that the Europeans back then have, well, behaved horribly. Lol.

"Every soul was either shot or bayoneted... We burned all the huts and razed the banana plantations to the ground."- 1902, British soldier in East Africa.

This quote from page 594 prompted those thoughts up above. Especially with the Industrial Revolution added to the mix and the creation of guns, firepower, and weapons of mass destruction, the use of force and threats with these kinds of military tools against the innocent natives generate such dreadful images in my head. The picture I drew up while reading the 1902 quote was even more devastating. The natives live so humbly, their huts and their plantations are literally all they have. What kind of human being could have the heart (or lack of) to do those kinds of things to entire villages, communities, countries?

It is explained that the motives of the Europeans consists of many things, such as the need for resources, trading routes, and even a genuine belief that natives are in dire need of God, and some form of structure and law. But really, who are they to say "No, your ways are wrong and yes, our ways are right, so convert"? With the use of force and through introducing all those diseases, they've killed off most of the native peoples like in Australia and New Zealand (p. 592). Colonization and advancement is, of course, a beneficial thing and the Europeans may have argued that what they are doing will immensely benefit the natives - it's for the greater good. But how are the new Europeans ways supposed to help the greater good if the greater good is dead and gone? Furthermore, they've caused a severe disruption of cultural practices that have peacefully and successfully fostered and governed individual lands for centuries.

It makes me wonder though: would these lands be better off without European influence and colonization? It's hard to argue against such things though, since our adaptation to those ways and the luxuries we are used to as a product of them are so ingrained in our everyday lives that it is impossible to think of a life without it. Colonization, in our eyes now, was and is necessary to sustain the comfortable life we live now.

The conversion of certain African/Asian states to European colonization differed in each case, but a successful one was in the case of Ethiopia and Siam who could avoid complete European takeover through their strong diplomatic and negotiating skills.  Also in the Mughal Empire territories where the people had nothing and there was an "absence of any overall sense of cultural or political unity" (p. 592), it seems right and even necessary for outside European powers to colonize it. It's the stable, rightfully governed, peaceful states that should be left alone, or at least consist of peaceful negotiations that don't include killing off most of its native population.

The global world would be pretty boring if each country had the same European culture, government, and people.