Suba's Global Blog

Mikhail Gorbachev and the Collapse of Communism

2010-05-07T14:14:00.004-04:00

Like I mentioned in my last blog Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the reasons as to why Communism had failed in Easter Europe. Gorbachev was different than some of the other political leaders because for one he was young and knew a lot about politics. Gorbachev was not a fan of Communism and when he became leader he was around54 years old at the time he decided to finish off Communism.

The difference between him and the old leader Stalin was that, Stalin was very ferocious as a leader and anyone who opposed him would be dealt with but after his reign of terror ended Gorbachev decided to put an end to his reign. One thing he did to start off his position in office was take people that were originally jailed by Stalin for opposing his power and system. Another change the Gorbachev made was he allowed banned books to be open to the public. You can Basically say that he took many steps forward to the people away from all the totalitarian governing ways that Stalin had instilled on his people.

Mikhail introduced a new policy's during his reign. One of which is called "Glasnost:" according to dictionary.com it means "the declared public policy within the Soviet Union of openly and frankly discussing economic and political realities." Another policy he introduced was Perestroikas which also by dictionary.com means "the program of economic and political reform." This allowed people to start their own business's which in communism didn't exist. Everything Gorbachev did was a way of giving the community what they have been in need of for a long time.

The Collapse of Communism

2010-05-07T14:11:00.005-04:00

Communism started to collapse in the Eastern side of Europe, or former Warsaw Pact countries, during the 1980's. The collapse had to start at the base of Communism or better known as the Soviet Union. Once the USSR started to break due to Democratic revolutions and reforms. In the Eastern part of Germany people pressured the old Stalinist government to step out of position and let themselves take control by having their own president take charge. This new president order on November 9th of 1989 to take down the Berlin Wall or Iron Curtain as many might call it during the Cold War era.

I mentioned in earlier blogs that East Germany re-uniting with West Germany was one of the few sparks that led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. October 2rd of 1990 was the day they re-united and it also lead to the collapse of Communism. A while afterwards the Soviet Union had collapsed on the New Years of Eve of 1991. The reason for them collapsing was due to the other Communist governed countries witnessing what Germany did and thought of doing and overthrow themselves. The Soviet Union themselves had a new leader and that was Mikhail Gorbachev who I will talk about in the next blog. With Gorbachev as a leader Communism would cease to exist but there are several other countries that remained Communist.

Nelson Mandela And Aparthied

2010-04-29T14:14:00.003-04:00

Apartheid is a form of Racial segregation in South Africa. Its similar if not the same representation of what we had going on in America with Racial Discrimination. African people did not have the same privileges as the white people did in South Africa. Though it was their own home territory the white people had no problem in taking over and instilling Apartheid into their land. Non-white people were set separate from the "white only" community in many places such as Government, bathroom, restaurants, and even schools. People who opposed this system would be banned and political leaders who opposed would even be killed.

Like how I said Nelson Mandela was a very important role in this time period is because he was one of the people who led to the Independence of Africa more specifically South Africa. Due to Nelson Mandela non-white people gained their rights back on their land. Also by non-whites I mean that even if you were half white you were still considered non-white. Back on topic, Mandela was prisoned for 27 years until he was finally released in 1990. The reason for locking him up was because he was one of those few people who spoke up. He disliked Apartheid and how the minority (the whites) were taking control of the majority (non-white). Just like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. he was one of those people who led non-violent strikes and protests. These methods have worked in the past so why not try it again. Simple civil-disobedient acts led to the imprisonment of Mandela.

Though Mandela was sent to jail he never gave up on hope and believed that Apartheid would come to an end. The people who led admired him plenty even when jailed his people didn't give up on hope either. In time Apartheid did fade away and Mandela was set free from prison. Soon non-whites gained their rights and independence from the whites. Nelson Mandela was seen as not only a political leader but also a political hero his ways of standing up for those who couldn't do anything shows what a hero does. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 for his actions. He is still alive today even after what he went through to get something for his people.

African Independence

2010-04-28T14:14:00.004-04:00

Between the years of 1955 and 1975 Africa gradually started to gain their independence from overseas European Nations. The only countries exempt form this takeover were Libya, South Africa, Ethiopia and Egypt. This time period was also called the Scramble for Africa. African countries had no say in what the Europeans were doing due to the fact that the imperialistic Europeans were far more dominant in weaponry. Even though Imperialism also involved placing your own traditions into the country being taken over, many of the people in Africa were not pleased. Very few enjoyed the perks that were provided by the Europeans but little did they know that Europeans were just here for natural resources for themselves rather than helping the African population. That was the scenery of what was going on after 1955.

By 1975 Africa broke through the shackles of the European countries and gained their independence. A very important figure in Africa during this time period was named Jomo Kenyatta. Jomo gained a good education while growing up and soon studied politics while he worked as a carpenter. He was put in prison for trying to prevent the British from turning the Government system in Africa into communism which by the way would be a very bad mix with imperialism. After being let out of jail 7 years later, Africa had gained their independence and Jomo became the president of Kenya.

Some other important leaders during this time period was Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes was a racist British leader who tried instill British control over Africa. The famous picture of him standing over Africa with puppet strings really shows his character during this harsh time. Two other important figures during this time were Nelson Mandela who soon became president of South Africa and Kwame Nkrumah who was the leader of Ghana.

I will speak of Nelson Mandela in the next blog but Kwame Nkrumah also one of the men who deserve credit for part of the whole African Independence change. His three goals were to first learn to govern, second unify the four territories of the gold coast and lastly gain independence for his nation. on March 6 of 1957 Nkrumah declared Ghana independent.

Film Lesson: "The Right Stuff"

2010-04-14T14:11:00.008-04:00

I found this movie to be very entertaining from its comedy and the plot itself. The back and forth competition between the U.S. and Russia was intriguing. For the most part of the movie I liked how it was more of a "I'm better than you" or "I can do this can you?" kind of relation between the two countries. Sure this was a serious time period in real life but in the movie the script apparently had a lot of room for some humor. For example the multiple shuttle launches until they we're finally successful. One of which didn't even get off the ground was hilarious because well for one it didn't blow up.

No wonder it was called the "Space Race." America was able to break the sound barrier. This scene was so well done just because of its believability due to the time frame in which the movie was made. Though we were able to do that we failed to send the first man to space. We were to send a man to space, after numerous tests on people, but instead ended up sending a monkey, yes a monkey. "The greatest nation in the world" prefers to send a primate into space instead of a real human due to fear of something going wrong. The monkey incident gave other countries a reason to make fun of America. Though the US didn't send a man to space, because it was far too dangerous, but Instead two or the three weeks later Russia successfully did it. Russia won that portion of the race by sending the first man into space, Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin. After which America was made fun of for not being able to do that.

The race was not over yet due to the fact that now either of the countries had to send the first man to the moon. This is where it was all business because America already lost one challenge in the race, they can't afford to lose another. We were able to send the first man to the moon and his name was Neil Alden Armstrong. This was the last thing that happened for the Space Race for there was nothing else to accomplish. We were already able to circle the globe multiple times. All in all, its a good solid movie and very factual. Shows you how much the human race can accomplish when in competitions like these. I mean breaking the sound barrier to sending people to the moon could soon lead to searching for other inhabitable planets. I'll remember Cold War because in this movie you never see any violence between Russia and the US it was just a simple Race to see who's better.

NATO and The Warsaw Pact

2010-04-12T13:34:00.011-04:00

NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which consisted of 28 countries. The countries within this organization were mainly the United States, Canada, and several Western European Countries. This organization was made after World War II and it was to provide aid for countries in need. Especially during a time right after WW2 European Countries were in dire need of aid. This organization could also work in a way as if one country needed help then others within the organization can help out.

In response to NATO, communist nations in Eastern Europe formed the Warsaw Pact. Out of all the countries in the pact the Soviet Union was by far the most powerful. As the dominant force in that allied side they kept Military bases in allied countries with a socialist form of government to keep them running. You can basically see this as a Capitalist vs. Communist kind of situation. Speaking of Capitalists and Communists this would lead into several events in the the Cold War. Since Communism was known to spread around NATO was a good way to make sure some of the Countries in Western Europe wouldn't be exposed to that kind of system of Government. In fact its actually very interesting how the Warsaw Pact was right next to countries that were in the alliance of NATO.

Although the Pact was formed 6 years after NATO it started to lose its power/recognition as countries went away like Eastern Germany formed back with Western Germany. Sooner or later the countries just split.

Film Lesson: "Schindler's List"

2010-03-23T14:13:00.007-04:00

Though this a Hollywood production it is very polished off and stays true to the meaning of the movie. Like "Night and Fog" there are very graphic scenes and unlike the documentary the actions taken towards the Jews are shown. The documentary only showed the results but not what lead up to them. Like all movies this was also plotted out but Spielberg tried to make it as realistic to the truth as possible. The difference between this film and the other mentioned above is because in this one you get to see the Jews talk and speak and see their reactions to what was going on. Sure it was scripted like I said but at least it was a very good of portraying emotions. If your a critic of movies and very critical on them then don't even bother saying a negative comment on this movie. Not only does it have everything it needs to be a good movie but it take place during a real event.

Some of the things you will see in a film like this are very disturbing as well. You get to see people killed on the spot. Its sick how the officers don't even care as long as they are gone. One thing that was a real emotion stirrer is the part where they show the kids. While the young adults and adults were in the selection stage the kids were being taken away. Also because the kids didn't have a clue what was going on. When they were on the big truck like vehicles being driven away they just waved "bye" and smiled. Shows you how innocence kills. Some of the kids did figure it out and tried to hide anywhere they could. I do have to say some kids were clever to hide under floorboards but the place is still a death camp.

Oskar Schindler is the man this movie is based around. He watched as the destruction around him was going on. Though being a German business man he was still able to save the lives of 1,100 Jews by employing them in his factories. Since he was a business man Schindler's mentality should be on money but instead it wasn't from how the ending was. The ending was very sad but a very important line I remember is "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire." Schindler did just that but he wished he could have saved more. He starts saying how he could have saved more if he didn't waste his money away, since Jews were cheaper labor. I have to say this is one of the most powerful endings in the movie industry. Sure its in black and white and most of it is all dialogue but whats important is what you get out of the movie. Personally I did like Schindler's List better because of the actions in the movie but I do agree "Night and Fog" has a more emotional impact.

Film Lesson: "Night and Fog"

2010-03-23T14:11:00.013-04:00

"Night and Fog" is a documentary about the holocaust. It shows disturbing footage of what went on in concentration camps and Nazi's sick and inhumane behavior towards Jews. Some of the scenes shown in the movie are hard to forget. If your into violent movies then I recommend you watch "Night and Fog" for you will see a big difference, one is real and the other is not. Some of the scenes in the video are very graphic and makes you think "what kind of people would do things like this?" Well obvious answer is the Nazi's! Who else could take out 6 millions Jew like that. Also watching how the Jews were being treated in captivity under the Nazi control was just sick. After seeing all the dead bodies just pains me how so many people were killed.

Just like a documentary does this film shows the facts and truths of Holocaust. Unlike the actual edited movies like "Schindler's List" you actually saw the results of the Holocaust. All the movies you see about the holocaust are usually played out but the pictures in this documentary were taken during that time. Though it may not be polished out and spectacular looking, even though it shouldn't be, real footage beats scripted any day because the emotion is already there. I mean if I saw dead bodies in Schindler's List sure it would be disturbing but I know that the person in the film didn't actually die unlike the people I saw in the documentary, most of which were already dead.

Overall I will say I have never seen so many dead bodies and such graphic footage before. I also hope to not see something like this again. Most likely it won't because people by now should have learned form the past by now but you never know, things can change at anytime. My final remark is that this kind of abuse to Jews was very brutal and this form of religious persecution is just sick and disgusting human behavior.

The Treaty of Versailles (ended WWI)

2010-02-24T23:00:00.009-05:00

On June 28th of 1919, The Allied Powers and Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles. This Treaty brought up many important details on everything from on who’s to blame to how things are going to be different in Europe. By having Germany sign the treaty in the Palace of Versailles (hence the name) in the winners territory also showed easily Germany went along with this. This treaty marked the end of WWI. Germany signed a treaty that put all the blame on them for damage and casualties caused in this war. Not only that but Germany military size got limited to 100,00o men and a maximum of 6 naval battleships. Germany couldn't have submarines or an air force either. All of these statements in the treaty piled up for as Germany also had to pay for the entire damage not just take the blame for it. To make matters worse all the countries Germany had control of were released from their grips. The territory Germany claimed in Africa during the age of imperialism was withdrawn.

Though I do blame Germany for being extremely brutal in wars not only because they are very well organized and deadly but making them pay for all the repercussions wasn't the right thing to do. As for reparations go of £6,600 million really made their economy declined so much that I doubt they were able to support themselves while paying off their debts. Also let’s not forget that other countries were involved in this war and the spark of this war began when the assassination of the archduke took place. As far as payback goes I believe the rise of Fascism signified the beginning. Adolf Hitler saw the Treaty of Versailles as discrimination and un-rightful punishment towards the Germans. In fact Germany did have the most casualties, why were they taking all the blame for this.

By adding insult to injury Germany also lost 10% of its land. Austria and Turkey also signed different treaties which made them both new countries even though they lost land, they didn't face the same repercussions like Germany. I don't blame Germany in the end thought the Treaty of Versailles was a bit harsh. I mean wasn't Germany just standing up for Austria once the archduke was killed. Maybe things would have been different if this treaty wasn't so rough towards the Germans. I still think Hitler would have gone into power in some way knowing how clever he was but I think European history would be a lot different if it wasn't for the Treaty of Versailles.

Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) and the modernization of Turkey

2010-02-23T19:30:00.004-05:00

Mustafa Kemal was known as "The Father of Modern Turkey." He brought changes to Turkey after WWI when the Allied Forces were victorious and the split of the Ottoman Empire. Not only was he considered the above title but also seen as the George Washington of Turkey. He was the first president of the country for 15 years. Kemal was also given the name "Ataturk" which means father Turk. Although he was given that name doesn't mean it came easily. He had to first make some changes in Turkey. Mostly secular which in this case means more modern less religious. He believes that the people of Turkey should first start dressing more like the people of Europe rather than what their religion says. He doesn't want them to be stuck in the past. One of the changes he made that was secular and that to do with his people appearance was the Fez. The Fez was a hat that men of the Muslim religion wore. Kemal called those people uncivilized for wearing a Fez that it is not a real hat. They should wear something that is actually a hat. As for women, he wanted them to stop wearing a veil.

The thing that made Kemal different from other leaders was that he let people practice their religion. The Ottoman Empire was special because it was a fully Muslim nation. After Kemal came into scene things changed. Kemal also cared for the peasants. The peasants finally became important within society because in the Ottoman Empire they were really forgotten. Overall Kemal brought multiple changes to Turkey that mimicked the western world whether it is clothes or way of life. That is why he is known as what he was "The Father of Turkey."

Film Lesson: "Gandhi"

2010-02-11T14:08:00.012-05:00

In 1869 one of the world’s most important/inspirational people was born. His name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was given the nickname "Mahatma" which means great soul. Indeed he was a great soul for all of his actions did believe in the act of violence. He was a peaceful soul himself. Gandhi was very intelligent well educated person that knew a lot about Law from his studies in London. This allowed him to succeed in his plans for India's independence in the future. Speaking of India's independence, Gandhi was one of the people to go against the control of Great Britain and lead his country to freedom. In doing so also led to his death, but that was due to religious reasons.

I liked the way Gandhi actually worked things out but the one thing I didn't like was the fact that many people on his side had to die and get hurt from his side. In the end that was the only way. His famous quote "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" is famous for a reason. That reason is the backbone of his actions. Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye" system was a violent system which could lead to physical problems. Gandhi thought that back and forth violence between both countries would only make both look bad.

Not only did Gandhi devote his life into gaining independence from Great Britain but also making all of India understand how to get it. He had to teach them that peaceful actions and taking blows from the enemy only shows who the bad guy is. A lot of them didn't understand that and thought about fighting fire with fire. Gandhi was ashamed of them for doing so because that is not the way he planned it. I see his plan with peaceful protests as more of a mind game. He wants to get in the head of the British government and show them that he doesn't care if dies for his country but as long as they see what they are doing and stop. He was arrested many times for apparent "Civil Disobedience" but gave himself up without causing any trouble. He knew if he went to jail and India saw what he was taking for his country maybe they would listen.

In 1931 he attended the Round table Conference in London, where he originally learned to study. This conference really didn't accomplish much except for the fact that news of Gandhi going to London was everywhere. He stood out from all of the people in the conference due to the fact he was wearing self-made clothes which looked different than all the other more modern business look everyone else had.

One of his other plans was to stop buying clothes from the Brits and weave their own. Not only that but by not buying British goods they are going to keep more money than give it away. Britain also had a monopoly over salt meaning India could only buy salt from them. Gandhi's salt march was one way of getting on the British's nerves since he is not doing anything violent but rather just going to the sea to make salt. Like I mentioned earlier about him being sent to jail several times, his plan there was to fast. Fasting is when you don't eat anything, just drink water. He used this to his advantage against both India and Britain. By that I mean he fasted to get India to listen to him instead of raging against the Brits with violence. The way he used it against Britain was different. While in jail he would do something called a "fast unto death." If he had died then there would be a revolution in India and most importantly show how bad Britain really is in their position.

India finally did get its Independence from Great Britain in 1947. Though was it a good thing? The answer is no. Due to the fact that when India gained its Independence the inner religious problems came up between the Hindu's and Muslims. Britain would agree to give control of India to them-self if the Muslim League and the Congress Party could settle their difference. Thought Gandhi's original plan was to have everybody as one strong nation he had no choice for this was the only opportunity and he took it. When the flags went up, indication their independence, two different ones went up. Gandhi was ashamed at what took place. It was more like ending one problem and creating another in my perspective. Hindu's resided in India while Muslims moved onto Pakistan; thus also the birth of Pakistan. Gandhi later on went around fasting to stop religious differences and create peace amongst both opposing forces. He was assassinated in January 30th of 1948 by a Hindu "fanatic." Which almost shocked the world that he was killed; it was actually the second attempt. I found that very disrespectful killing the man that gave you and your country independence.

In my mind I think Gandhi really did have a big affect on India. If it wasn't for his non-violent ways most of India would have died out and given up in wars/massacres. Maybe in time Britain would have given up on India but I don't think it would have happened any faster if Gandhi wasn't there to show India which way to go. Though World War II was in progress in 1947 I still believe India would have been a threat to Britain even then. Britain could have easily manipulated India to doing what they wanted no matter how much they refused and fought back.

The Russian Revolution

2010-01-13T12:29:00.012-05:00

The Russian Revolution had many reasons as to why it happened. Only a country with a troubled economy and disorderly political system would go to war with itself. The whole war was based around one word and that was communism. Communism was first introduced by Karl Marx during the Industrial Revolution time period. As you can see history seems to repeat itself since it made its way to Europe. Basically communism is where the people work and everyone gets the same amount of pay no matter what profession. A doctor would make the same amount of money as that of a factory worker. Before it would be a boss or a big titled person leading the actual workers who made less money than them.

During this time Russia would be ruled by king like figures known as Czars. These kinds of rulers were self-centered and would only consider themselves important. They would have a selfish attitude towards other people like a king would. This is more of a capitalistic attitude if you were to replace a Czar with a factory owner and the peasants/people as factory workers. Changes needed to be made to this just like they were during the industrial revolution. In fact just like the Industrial Revolution time period people would go on strikes spreading communism and people in Russia did just that.

On top of all the politics and royal issues, Russia had more physical conditions such as diseases spreading (people getting sick), starvation, and a crazy Czar who kept sending troops into war only to get injured and die. Russia as well didn't have a stable financial system so they were not able to supply the soldiers with proper weaponry for war. World War One was one of the biggest obstacles for Russia. They were up against the likes of Germans who had very advanced weapons and technology and battle plans.

Soon the revolts the people had made caused the Czar to leave his throne following that changes were finally made to Russia's political system. A group called the Bolsheviks, which was led by Vladimir Lenin, took over Russia. He led his small group into a revolution against the temporary government made after the Czar had left his throne. The phrase/slogan "Peace, land, and bread" showed the changes that would be brought to Russia. Peace meaning ending the war that seems to keep going on. Land as in getting the land back from the factory owners and such and give them to the commoners like farmers/people who needed it. Bread is the obvious one due to the fact that Russia's people were starving. A new change was that people would be fed unlike before.

After the Bolsheviks won and defeated the temporary government and gave what they promised in that quote. Russia soon left World War One because of its own internal reasons rather than the external war itself. Sure that took a toll on the people and such but their own problems were far larger than that of World War One's. Lenin ruled over Russia after taking over the Government and forming his own kind with ideas from Karl Marx's communism. Russia became the first ever communist country. In this case Revolution really did mean change since many changes were made after Lenin took power.

Causes for WW I

2010-01-11T12:11:00.015-05:00

World War One maybe if not considered one of "The Most Important Wars" of human kind. This war had many causes just like any war but this was the first war that you will hear of where technology was advanced amongst both sides rather than one towering over the other.

One of the reasons was nationalism. Nationalism is basically ones pride and respect for their country. The general statement gets way out of hand for it causes the war due to the egos of the countries getting the best of them. One's pride for their country is good for that country alone but when it comes to bragging it can lead to some very bad things such as being one of the causes for World War One. Nationalistic behavior led to hanging up posters and such showing but probably isn't and wasn't the best idea for it was like saying "my country is better than yours."

A big factor in war is military and how efficient the soldiers are at war. Militarism played a part as one of the causes because it tested a countries military and strength at war. It portrays how ready the country is at all times for war. The size of a countries military and naval fleet could make another country in fear for that country could attack at anytime. They would even plan things out before hand and then attack this would leave other countries in fear and wondering what they could b up to. The overall reason militarism played a huge role in the war is because having a military battle ready at all times could prove to be a good thing. It will shake up the minds of the bordering countries and also help you form a good defensive move as well as offensive.

Probably the biggest cause of the war which led to the spark that let others know that it was time for happened on June 28th, 1914. It was the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand. The killing was done by a Serbian nationalist who killed the Archduke on his trip to Sarajevo. This led to Austria blaming the Serbians for this incident and pulled this into the brink of war. One after another countries started to defend one another. Germany considered Austria to be on the same side as them so they would be able to help them out in war. Soon other countries decided to join saying if they declare war on Serbia then they declare war on the opposing country. One after another, led to the beginning of World War One. The overall statement in this cause is that the assassination was the switch and the declaration of war was the trigger.

Opium Wars - Imperialism in China

2009-12-18T12:27:00.015-05:00

According to definition Opium is "a bitter, yellowish-brown, strongly addictive narcotic drug" that is used to cause "dullness or inaction" and is able to soothe the mind and its emotions. The British took advantage of its effects and used it against the Chinese since they had Tea which was something they wanted from them but the Chinese just wouldn't budge when they asked to trade with them. The British began trading the Chinese Opium which soon got them addicted to the drug as its effect says. Soon this led to a major problem for the Chinese Government had ruled that the trading of Opium is illegal and there would be consequences if trading of opium had occurred. Though the ban on Opium was made Chinese citizens still continued on with it. They became so addicted to it that their money/economy deteriorated.

Once their financials became low they decided to end the trade and get rid of the Opium they had under their possession. The British on the other hand did not take this action very kindly for they had decided to rage into this and start a battle. Obviously the British had the upper hand due to technological advantages and a more stable economy than that of the Chinese. Chinese officials made a mistake in their part by actually having tax collectors heavily tax the people which was a bad idea for they had not expected the Brits to attack. Another reason for their loss is due to their low financial stability for they couldn't organize a military let alone one strong enough to take down that of the British. Also they would risk their own regular trade functions by going to war with the British. In the end of the war Great Britain signed a peace treaty with China because one; china didn’t want lose its pride and two; it was obvious of the outcomes of this war.

Film Lesson: "Mountains of the Moon"

2009-12-10T12:30:00.016-05:00

In class we watched a movie called "Mountains of The Moon." It was a very interesting movie to see due to all the violence and action and sheer confusion I got when I saw Richard Burton live a spear right to the face. This movie showed a great example of Imperialism because Richard Burton and John Speke were on a mission to find the source of the Nile River. On their way they met natives of Africa and had various fights with some of them. One of the most important scenes in the movie featured Burton showing the Ruler of a village a gun. He found it very interesting and decided to shoot it at someone all of the natives were terrified of the object. They faced other hardships such as the way they were going to the source. The land they walked on was not the best thing to walk on in the heat. One of the most disturbing things that happened was when John Speke had a beetle go into his ear it was a very disturbing and painful scene to watch. Also some of the people that were helping Burton and Speke decided to desert them and take some supplies with them.

When Speke had claimed he had found the source of the Nile River some problems between him and Burton came up and this led to a trial decide this. In the end Speke ended up taking himself out of the picture by killing himself. Burton had decided to not continue saying his side of the trial for he was in the shadow of John's death. Speke was indeed right when he claimed Lake Victoria, which was soon to be named, was the actual source of the gigantic river known as the Nile. The odd thing about the name of the lake is that why a lake in Africa would be named after a queen from England? Well it’s probably due to the fact that the people, who went out of their way to find and name it, were Europeans even more into detail of English decent. Though it’s in Africa the natives there are too uneducated or even carefree as to even name their territory. Imperialism was basically a system and this movie showed a great example of that. The Europeans came educated the Natives of Africa and taught them a more civilized lifestyle. Overall it was a more industrial move for them.

This movie was a great way to show the Europeans would dominate over the Natives. This may be a weird way to state this but when Burton survived the spear to the face it was a foreshadowing of how dominant a gun is compared to simple tools made form nature like spears and shields. In a fight between people with spears and people with gun the answer is obvious. The guns are more advanced and therefore will easily take down the person coming at you with a spear. It is also sign of showing how the Europeans wouldn't stop till they got what they wanted, which is both the land and for the people of Africa to live a more courteous and kind natured lifestyle. The part where Speke was showing the Native how to pour tea was an example of this for he was showing him how to do something the right way. The will of Speke and Burton to journey across the Africa was a rough one but in the end after many hardships, fights and emotions their mission was complete into finding the source of the Nile River.

Imperialism Project

2009-12-07T12:25:00.014-05:00

This projected on imperialism was used to teach us how imperialism worked and as to why the countries were taken over by the parent country. This project not only taught us about color coding and how important it was to see how far Europe had reached for raw materials but also how many countries had been a part of this. The map we were working on, with our partners, consisted of us pasting items like Gold, Cotton, Silver and etc... Onto the maps and making arrows indicating from country to country as to what actions was going on and which country was going where.

The coloring portion of the project was interesting because we saw Europe go to places like Canada and many more places that I had not known they would go to. This also helped me learn that there are places in Africa I never heard of that Europe took over and it was all because they had really good natural resources. As the picture in this post indicates almost all of Africa was taken over by countries in Europe. France and Britain were two of the biggest players in this Imperialism game as you can see from the picture. Another important thing I also learned from this project that not displayed in the picture is that slaves were also transported around from the Eastern U.S. and Africa during this time. There were several trades routes that we needed to draw. The one I remember was from Britain to China that one, as I learned later on, led to the Opium wars.

Karl Marx and Communism

2009-11-19T12:27:00.009-05:00

Communism is when everyone has the same pay (wealth) and social class. It is where the wealth would be split amongst each other and is derived from the word common. No matter what your occupation is you will still make the same amount as everybody else.

This may seem unfair to those who work harder and deserve more money but communism tends to be for the people who need the money. This way wealth is equal amongst all people meaning that everyone is on the same level when it comes to their class. There are no more high classed people hogging all the money while all the lower class people are doing all the work. Karl Marx believed that history was a struggle between classes.

The way things were running at the time was Capitalism which he found really unfair due to the fact that workers would work hard in factories but the owners of the factory would hold most of the money. The owners in this came would be considered the "bad guys" while the hard working people were "good guys." He thought that they should rebel against this system so they can finally be free from the owners of the factories that steal their hard earned money. He had believed communism to be the type of government where the commons or the workers would be in control.

Karl Marx and The Industrial Revolution

2009-11-17T12:41:00.006-05:00

Marx disliked the Industrial Revolution, which he had called capitalism. He thought the conditions in the factories in Europe were too rough and dangerous for workers. He believed that instead of the factories should be owned by the workers themselves and not landlords. He thought that people were born into a world where they can't make changes in society. That was a problem. He urged the workers to unite and break free of this hold and change society for themselves and become an individual. He believed that when one was born that there pathway in life was already chosen and one had to break free off all the laws, and religion that bind that person in with the rest of the world.

When he told everyone to unite a new term was given to this movement. It was called communism. Communism derives from the word "common." For everyone in the world should be a separate individual and be the same in each way no matter what gender or age. When capitalism would be taken down by this revolution the money workers made would be equal amongst one another depending on what he did and how much he needed it. In the end his "utopia would be a place where there are no social classes and workers were individuals in society.

Nationalism and the Creation of Italy

2009-10-27T12:43:00.022-04:00

Nationalism is basically ones loyalty towards their country/nation also known as patriotism. One way people express nationalism is by having a flag of whichever country they are from in their homes and shows that they are loyal and proud to be from there. Unlike being a loyalist, who has to do with being a loyal to a king you are loyal to a specific place and its people/culture. Another way is by also adapting to a new country or place and trying to fit in with what goes on in that region. For example a lot of people come to America. Once they get here, majority of the people are not going to live the same life as they did before. Some even fit in well enough with real Americans that their habits and of showcasing that they are proud to live in America become identical.

I don't display many cases of nationalism even though I live in America. It’s not like that I am not proud to live but why do I have to choose one over another if there are many more other countries in the world. I do follow some of American traditions by watching the fire works on the fourth of July which is one of the most important dates in American history. I also have multiple flags on the United States and have them placed in various places in my house. I also carry money as in dollars (since that is our currency); know the Pledge of Allegiance and majority of the words to the Star Spangled Banner. Most importantly I write, read, and speak English as my major language almost everywhere. Though I was not organically born here I still don't know my own native language best which a requirement is not really for me.

If it wasn't for nationalism Italy wouldn't be what it is now. Before, after 1815, majority of Italy was ruled by Austria. But as time went on, from 1815-1848, Italy grew tired of being ruled over by another country. Two leaders were able to help them get what they wanted and that is to be a separate country and be one of their own. Even though in the end Italy got what it wanted they had many problems after the multiple battles and efforts it had underwent, they came out of it with economic and political problems. A lot of the problems were amongst themselves such as the North vs. the South.

Simon Bolivar and Latin American Revolutions

2009-10-22T12:33:00.012-04:00

Simon Bolivar was born in Caracas, Venezuela. This is kind of weird because the country named after him, Bolivia, is smaller than Venezuela where he originated from. He was born on July 24 in 1783. Bolivar was a well educated person due to his excellent teachers. Thanks to them he learned facts about the enlightenment, which may have influenced his decisions made in the future. His life wasn't all too great at first since he lost both parents while he was still young, and had to reside with his uncle until he was 15. He was sent to continue his studies in Spain by his uncle.

When he was 19 he got married but this marriage did not last long for his wife had died only after a year of their marriage upon his return back to Venezuela. He soon returned to Europe but this time his purpose was for travel especially in Italy and France. He used this time to study people like John Locke and even Napoleon. On the way back to Venezuela he stopped in the U.S.A. There he learned that they had just gained their independence from Great Britain. When he finally got back home he decided that it was South America’s turn to depart from Spain and gain their form of independence. He was going to lead them through it as well.

This is where the title "the George Washington of South America" began. In 1810 he seized Caracas and had to recapture it after he had come back from Great Britain for help. When he returned empty handed from there Bolivar had command of patriot army. First they defeated the Spaniards from Caracas but soon after they forced him to go back to modern day Colombia. In 1814 he got control of Bogota with help from the Colombian armies. Though they had win their many other defeats to come due to lack of food and supplies.

Bolivar had moved onto Jamaica. When he had reached Haiti, Bolivar was able to assemble another force this time to go to Venezuela and this time they had captured control of Angostura. In 1819, after ridding Colombia of Spaniards, Colombia had been liberated. On December 17 1819 he became president of the congress that had organized Colombia. Soon he took down the Spaniards that were in Venezuela in June 24 1821. Soon Ecuador became under his control rather than Spain’s. He soon became a dictator of Peru after meeting with another Liberator, Antonio Jose de Sucre. Together they led the final battles fought in this revolution and it had finally ended on December 9, 1824. The upper portion of Peru is now what is called Bolivia after what he had done for South America he deserved to have a country named after him.

John Locke and "The Enlightenment"

2009-09-26T23:17:00.015-04:00

The truth Thomas Jefferson was talking about, in the declaration of independence, was the fact that "all men are created equal." This phrase states that everybody is not created to be treated unfairly than others. Like all others they should be receiving similar or even same "rights" such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are the three things that every individual should have and even though I mention them as an individual’s but together they form the whole group.

According to the declaration of independence the government comes from the people. They decide who should lead it, they decide whether if the choices that are made are good ones. One very important line from the document is that if "Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." Basically it means if the leader or whoever is in charge of the power, becomes a tyrant or too power hungry then the people have the right to remove him from the position and or make changes to the system. They have the right to form their own form of government to whatever they please to their own "safety and happiness".

You can immediately see the changes in the structure and system in government than from the older ones like monarchy. These ideas were developed and formed by John Locke who gathered bits and pieces of ideas for the perfect government from enlightenment thinkers. Those ideas soon formed into what we have now and that is known as a democracy where the people have power and a say in what goes on in their own country/nation.

Copernicus and the trial of Galileo

2009-09-18T12:30:00.013-04:00

When you think of the solar system, there are two important theories you should know about, heliocentric and geocentric. When you break the words down they go to their Greek meanings. In Heliocentric: Helios is the Greek word for sun. While in Geocentric; Geo is Greek for earth. In both words: Centric comes from Kentron which is the Greek word for center. Geocentric means that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Heliocentric is a little different than that. It states that the sun is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it instead of the earth. Obviously both of these theories are not true. The Geocentric theory may have come first but it is not the correct one.
When you think of the solar system, there are two important theories you should know about, heliocentric and geocentric. When you break the words down they go to their Greek meanings. In Heliocentric: Helios is the Greek word for sun. While in Geocentric; Geo is Greek for earth. In both words: Centric comes from Kentron which is the Greek word for center. Geocentric means that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Heliocentric is a little different than that. It states that the sun is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it instead of the earth. Obviously both of these theories are not true. The Geocentric theory may have come first but it is not the correct one.

During the scientific revolution advances in scientific and mathematic ideas were taken to different levels. Great advances such as views towards the universe were challenged. One of them was that everything does not revolve around the earth. In the 16th century Copernicus had developed a model of the heliocentric system. Though it did come up till consideration until 1,800 years later, Johannes Kepler was able to work with and add on to Copernicus's theory.

Galileo Galilei was a famous astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, and a physicist. He played a very important role in the scientific revolution. In 1630 Galileo published the "Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World." He had discussed the heliocentric theory and denied the geocentric theory. Unlike the geocentric theory Galileo was able to support heliocentrism with acknowledgeable facts and evidence from his studies of physics and his findings through his telescope that was placed in his garden. Galileo was surprised to find that his theory had more skeptics than believers.

For his actions, Galileo was taken to trial, in 1633, by the Catholic Church because they on the other hand did not follow the same beliefs and ideas as Galileo did. They strictly followed the teachings of philosophers like Aristotle, Ptolemy and things taught within the church. Basically the church saw him as a threat to the public and if people found out that he was actually right then many people would challenge the church as well.

After the trial Galileo was forced to renounce his beliefs in heliocentrism and his book was banned by the Catholic Church. His original verdict was to be jailed for life in prison but was changed the day after to house arrest which led up to his death. Only after his death in the 1990's did the Church lift the ban that was placed on his book "Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World."

Scientific Revolution: The Scientific Method

2009-09-17T12:41:00.012-04:00

The Scientific Method is a reliable way to question or challenge an idea or even come up with something then test it. People couldn't challenge an idea if they didn't know what it was, considering the fact that ideas were argued rather than tested back then which is not only outrageous by the fact that people believed it, but also people who came up with the theory didn’t even bother checking to see if they were right. One reason why is because they wouldn’t know what to do or how to go about finding out answers. Basically everyone just went with the first thing they heard.
This method is very organized and goes step by step. Each step is very crucial. You start off with observations. Basically all you do is observing something and if you find something that looks interesting then you can start to form questions about it. The next step is the hypothesis

A hypothesis is your opinion/prediction/educated guess on what you think is going to happen. Once you have come up with a hypothesis you perform experiments.

By doing these tests you get closer to answering your questions and proving that your hypothesis is right. These tests have very detailed steps known as the procedure. They would also contain multiple trials because you can't base your decision on just one try.

If anything turns out to be false then you have to go back to the hypothesis stage and start over from there. When the tests are finally done and you have results proving your theory right, then you can come up with a conclusion stating it and call your idea a theory from then on.

It may seem like a really long process but in the end it’s all worthwhile knowing that you can tell people something they know is right. Also if some criticize you, instead of just arguing you can show them the facts and results to make believers out of them as well.

An example of an experiment that utilizes the scientific method is to see if lack of sleep affects a person’s mood. First off you would form your hypothesis which in this case would be mine and I would say that "I think a person would have be more ill-tempered and vinegary (cranky) if they have lack of sleep." Then I would have to move onto my tests by getting people willing to be a part of the experiment.

Then I would have to divide the people in half and have a control group and experimental group. The people not getting any sleep would be the experimental while the people who are would be the control. In each trial I would have to record the difference between the experimental and control groups behaviors and actions. In the end when I have completed all my trials I would gather all my results and come up with a conclusion stating everything that has happened.

There I will have proof stating my hypothesis right or wrong. I can't say which right now because I have not done this experiment, but form prior knowledge of the human mind I can say that my hypothesis is correct.

Evolution vs. Creation

2009-09-14T12:30:00.003-04:00

The theory of evolution basically deals mostly with nature and sciences. I'm not just saying it has to do with nature just because of Natural Selection but because it takes up majority of what Charles Darwin was trying to prove in his theory of evolution. His theory suggests that all people and animals have a common ancestor. That ancestor could have walked/swam etc...On earth millions of years ago and through natural selection (survival of the fittest) the organism developed more into the years and formed more complex organisms. Basically put, all of the advanced organisms are able to survive under the conditions while the weak are at a disadvantage as they start to die out. Passing on traits to the next generation is very crucial or nature itself will take you out. The one thing about this theory that makes it so unique and draws attention to people is that we humans/homo-sapiens/people have common ancestors to animals, mostly traits identical to primates. We developed from cavemen as they grew in intelligence. One question that people ask to skepticize this theory is "how was the first organism created?" That one question alone is able to shoot down majority of the ideas that Darwin within his theory. That question leads me into the theory of creation.

The theory of creation deals with religious beliefs. These religious beliefs all begin by saying that some kind of divine force/deity/god(s) created all life, hence the name "theory of creation." According to the book of genesis it simply states that god created the first man, Adam, and takes one of his ribs and forms the first woman, Eve. People that favor the theory of evolution critique this theory by saying that you can't prove that god created life neither can you test it. The only proof that is available is found in the bible. Throughout the years people have become more sophisticated, thus people gained the courage to challenge this theory and try to prove it wrong with evolution. Overall both theories are able to question each other and have reasons to back them up with. I know I may seem more lenient to evolution but actually evolution has many flaws that are found within while creation all begins with the idea of god creating life.

In my opinion I stick in between both theories. The reason for my decision is because both of these theories are not perfect and have many flaws some yet to be uncovered. I do give a little nod towards evolution because of it natural selection and passing traits on to the next generation idea. Even though it says that humans developed from primates it still defies the idea of god creating two human beings and letting it start from there. I have to agree with people who pointed out this major flaw in the theory of evolution "what created the first living organism?" Like I mentioned before, this one question alone can eliminate many ideas within evolution. In my mind I still believe that something had to create it and by doing so evolution just seems less and less believable. I also wondered if there was a way both of these theories could be right and that the flaws in both of them could be found in one another. I doubt that a lot or any people would agree with me on that thought but this is how I view life.