Monroe Doctrine & Connections to Today

In the 1800's the US had a foreign policy, that I like better than the one right now, that is extremely different from our policies present day. Since the second world war we have gotten ourselves into every conflict there has been. In an article by the US News, they talk about the US's intervention in the war against ISIS. It says that the fighting is raging on and ISIS influence is spreading. People are saying the reason we are unable to push them back is because we are lacking a good strategy. Another key reason that it explains is the fact that Obama's administration takes too long to come up with military decisions. If the US was following the Monroe Doctrine, it would need to do these three things. First, the US should start to focus on the US instead of worrying about what ISIS is up to. Second, the US should not have intervened in any of the wars over the past 200 years. The only exception I would make to that would be the second world war. We would be speaking German had we not intervened. But, ISIS would not be a problem to us if we didn't start bombing them. ISIS does not affect us directly so we should stay out of their business. Lastly, some people consider us an empire because we own land that isn't in the union like Puerto Rico or the Midway islands. That topic is very controversial but the US, above all, should not rule over any other countries including ISIS. If I had the chance I would have a sit down, if I could go back in time, and talk with every president there has ever been and advise them to stick to the Monroe doctrine. A lot of the violence and aggression we see against the US is because we have intervened in so many other countries' businesses. The reason for 9/11 is because of the Iraq war and we pissed of a bunch of crazy terrorists. I would rather the US be like Canada, no one wants to nuke them!

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/05/war-against-isis-in-syria-iraq-and-now-libya-appears-rudderless

Race & Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today

Out of all the revolutions in Latin America, besides Haiti, Mexico was the first to declare independence and fight for their freedom. The Mexican revolution, although the declared independence in 1810, didn't end until 1821, 11 years later. What is very ironic about this whole revolution was the that they declared racial equality, yet, certain groups of people followed certain leaders. They all wanted the same thing but they were all separated by race. It all started in 1810 when a man named Miguel Hidalgo, a catholic priest, issued the "Cry of Dolores." It called for equality, but, what was funny was that only native Americans and mestizos followed him. No one else would follow him. Eventually, he was captured and executed after his troops were defeated when trying to take Mexico city. In the end, royalists were the ones who brought independence. They promised Mexican revolutionary reforms and they only did it because they wanted to keep their high status in Mexican society. It's very ironic how they claimed they wanted freedom and equality, yet, they were only doing it because they wanted to still be above everyone else. As you can see race and identity played a huge roll because in the beginning mexico was not united because of race and in the end they only united because they were lied to be Mexican conservatives who wanted to keep their status.

 "78% Say Politicians Play 'Race Card' Just to Get Reelected - Rasmussen Reports™." 78% Say Politicians Play 'Race Card' Just to Get Reelected - Rasmussen Reports™. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.

A summary of the article is that it talks about how politicians play the "Race card" so that they can get more votes and be reelected. It says that 78% of Americans believe that politicians use the "race card" to get reelected, and these are not just a single group of people, blacks and minorities also agree. Out of all Americans, only 9% think that politician use the "race card" to talk about real issues and 13% don't know. Race plays a huge roll in politics. For example, a kid robbed a store and got shot in Ferguson and 3 white house officials attend his funeral. Yet, veterans and other good people die everyday and they get no recognition. I would totally agree that the cop who shot the kid should go to jail but what makes me side with the cop is the fact that this kid robbed a store and for all the cop knows this guy could try to attack him. A lot of the time Americans are worried and outraged so much about race that they overlook the facts and make up things that never happened.

Congress of Vienna

       In class we got into groups and were assigned a different country. My group was Austria. What we had to do was decide which of the three decisions would be the best one in order for all the countries to get what they want. The first problem that we were faced with was that we needed to do about how the map would be redrawn. We found out that what really happened was that they brought back France's territory and expanded Prussia's land. They also established the kingdom of the Netherlands. The second problem we faced was how we would reestablish government leaders. In real life we found out that they restored the throne of Louis XVIII. The last problem was how should we stop future revolutions. We also found out that they set up a system of alliances so that they could crush revolutions.

          The system of crushing revolts was called the holy alliance. The idea was that the rulers of the countries had divine right and going up against them was considered going up against god. This would justify crushing the revolt. What they did was if there was a revolt in a country then the neighbor country would send troops to crush the revolt. This also ties in with the principle of intervention which gives countries the rights to crush revolts. The Congress of Vienna had a huge impact on the world. They basically decided how the most advanced countries would be for the next 100 years. The way that Europe is shaped today could be way different without the congress.

           I think that for the most part they made the right choice. However, if they wanted to prevent a revolution they should have let the people choose how they should be governed. I think it would have been better for the powerful people to give up their power to ensure that they don't lose it all.

http://www.emersonkent.com/images/congress_of_vienna.jpg

Napoleon's impact on Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Crossing_the_Alps

When you hear the name Napoleon Bonaparte, you either think dwarf or tyrant. He wasn't a dwarf, in fact, he was tall compared to the average height at the time, however, in some eyes he's a tyrant and in others a hero. To most of the population of France, middle class and poor, he was a hero because he abolished social classes and favored a meritocracy. We know he favors a meritocracy because in the article "The lost voices" it states "yet 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 who endeavored to crush him."  A meritocracy is a form of government that pays and treats people based off of skills, not your name or your wealth. That is one big impact that he had on Europe. At the time the nobles didn't have to be skilled, they either inherited the wealth or had a good last name. That's why most of the wealthy didn't like him. Eventually when he invaded Europe he spread this form of government to the rest of his empire. An impact that he directly had on France was that he rebuilt it. After, the revolution France was shambles so Napoleon took the opportunity to gain power. Had he not done this France could be a completely different country. For all we know it could not be a country in modern times if it weren't for Napoleon. So basically he overall strengthened France's economy and made it a strong empire. So now when you think Napoleon, instead of thinking of a dwarf or a tyrant, even though he basically was, you will have a better understanding.

Socialism VS Capitalism

What we did in class on Thursday was a very unique, and somewhat fun, activity to help us understand the differences of socialism and capitalism. When we walked in to class, we all received different amounts of wealth a.k.a star bursts. Some people got no star bursts at all while others received 10. I only got 3 star bursts meaning that I was a middle class citizen. Ms. Bailey explained to us that we would play Rock Paper Scissors against each other and the winner received one of the loser's star bursts. In the beginning of the game, most people went and gambled for more star bursts while others hid theirs so that they wouldn't lose any. After awhile I noticed that Ian and Pat formed a gang and tried to go around stealing people's star bursts. Even though that may sound unfair, everything was allowed. As more and more of the star bursts went to the same people, the thievery got worse. At one point Doug was cowering in fear in the corner while he was repeatedly attacked by Pat and Ian. I even noticed, first hand, what it was like to be robbed. Catherine asked me if I could play Rock Paper Scissors with her and I agreed. I ended up winning and when I asked for a star burst she said she didn't have any. Then, later on in the game she asked again and this time I lost. Instead of calling things even Catherine took my star burst and ran off. Before I could go after her Ms. Bailey called the game to an end. After looking over what happened during the game, I thought that, overall, it was really fun to laugh when Pat and Ian failed to rob someone. I also liked the thrill of gambling for more star bursts. The entire purpose of this game, however, was not just to fool around but to simulate a capitalist economy on a much smaller scale. To simulate a socialist economy, we all got the same amount of star bursts and that was it. We didn't do any games because everyone had to have the same amount. Overall, I though that both activities were great ways to simulate socialist and capitalist economies.

                  Marx and Smith both had similar priorities, which were to help the poor, however, they both had extremely different ways about going about this. Marx, wanted go make a complete communist economy where the wealth is evenly distributed to everyone. This way everyone would be equal and social classes would be eliminated. Smith, however, wanted to have a free market economy. He thought that by having free commerce it would help the poor significantly. Although that is a brief overview of their theories, it's still not everything that there is.

                 The two theories are both good but out of the two, I personally like a capitalist economy, I would chose communism. There are many reasons why communism would not work, but I am going to focus on why it is good. In a communist economy, you can be completely positive that no one is poor. I think that both would work, but you can be happy knowing that everyone is equal. One of the reasons why I don't like a communist economy, is that fact that some people deserve more than others. Some people work harder than others yet if it's a communist economy they stay equal to someone who's lazy and doesn't want to do anything. That's the only reason why I could never stand a communist economy.

                 I  really thought that the Socratic seminar was interesting. Everyone brought different ideas to the table and everyone thought differently. I noticed that when we talked about the activity we did Thursday, half the people didn't like the rich while others, like Doug, liked the rich people. What I thought was funny was the fact that the people who liked the rich were the rich people in the activity and the ones who didn't were poor or middle class. I heard Pat say that it was every man for himself and I thought that was interesting because he was all by himself, before him and Ian formed their gang. I think he said that only because he was alone and that's how he felt. I also heard Pat say that it felt like he would never be rich. I understand where he is coming from. If you start out rich you have less of a hill to climb than someone who wan't as lucky. For people who are born into a poor family, it seems almost impossible to ever be successful and most people quit and don't try because of it and that's why their family stays poor. Lastly, in the discussion of communism, I heard a very good point from who believe was Catherine ( I could be wrong.) She said that communism would never work because it is human nature to want more and to get ahead. That is 100% true. Not everyone, but, a lot of people are really greedy and that's the main reason why communism wouldn't work.

Luddites: Taking sides

There are a lot false interpretations of Luddites nowadays. They are thought to be people who hate technology all the way to people who have no idea how to use it. However, the Luddites aren't like that at all. Actually, back during the industrial revolution, these people protested mills because they were poor and/or weren't being payed enough money for their work. They showed their anger by destroying the machines in the mills. What made them feared by mill owners and other business owners was their so called leader, Ned Lud. They claimed their leader was the one organizing all of the protests and riots. However, there is evidence that shows that Ned Lud never existed. Whether or not this is true, it is still how the Luddites got their name. The following paragraph will be a fake letter from a farmer in Britain to his cousin in America.

In this picture you see two Luddites destroying a machine in a mill.
 They are angry about poor wages and feel cheated.

Dear Mary,
                  A lot has changed since I last wrote and there are many things that I want to tell you about. Mainly, about this group of radicals called "Luddites." From what I have heard they are angry about not making enough money for their work and overall how poor they are. What they usually do to show their anger with the mill owners is they break into the mills and destroy the machines. It is definitely hurting their business. Usually had this been a few years ago i would disagree with their reasons. However, over the years, the amount of money I have been getting for my crops has been decreasing. A lot of the families that use to be next door packed up and went to the cities to work in the mills. The amount of money the mills pay is pathetic yet it is better than farming. That is mainly why I support the Luddites. I am in a very similar position as they are. Although, even because I support them it doesn't I am going to drop everything and help them protest. Not only has parliament made it illegal to break machines, punishable by death, they have also deployed troops to protect the mills. On top of that I have a family to feed and I can't go out and help a bunch of radicals fight for something I am not even a part of. Times are tough but I hope you are fairing better than we are. As always, stay safe.



                                                                                                                                  Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                 Farmer Brown    

Why working conditions were so bad in mills

In Britain and in the United States, working conditions in the mills during the industrial revolution were all but good. In Britain, lots of children got many different diseases and mutilations because of the grueling work and long hours. One kid’s hand swelled so big that they amputated it. When they opened it up the inside of the bone had no marrow. Although the conditions in Britain were much worse, the factories in both countries were hazardous. In Britain, the main reason that the conditions were so bad was because of the large population of children. There were so many children that the factory owners didn’t need to make the factories a good place because no matter what the children would be working to make money for their poor families. The reason there was such a large population of children was because Britain had no more land and it was just a small island. However, in the US there was westward expansion so mill owners needed to make conditions good to attract workers.

What it is Like to be a Museum Curator!

Our exhibit was set up in a very simple and easy to comprehend way. We had three pictures across the top and the two paragraphs were glued right beneath the two pictures on the right. The fourth picture was glued directly beneath the top left picture. We had three placards, two under the paragraphs and one below the two pictures on the far right. The two pictures on the far left depict children pulling mine carts in a very small and cramped area. This highlights the poor working conditions that these children were put through. The two middle documents are about how many children there were working in mills vs how many adults and teenagers were working there. Finally, the picture in the top right shows a child working with no shoes on. This is a hazard because there is nothing protecting his feet and he could easily step on a lose nail or a machine and lose a foot. When it comes to our title it's not very creative and catchy. It's really hard coming up with a catchy title when you are discussing child labor. Although our title isn't catchy it still gets the point across that our poster is about child labor and how bad it was. My hope when others see our poster is that they will learn that although the industrial revolution changed human history it still was a brutal time for people especially children. One big thing that I learned from everyone else's posters is that there was a lot of controversy about building new railroads and all this new technology. Some claimed that building the rail road in England would make the land look ugly while others said that it would make England seem smaller and more united and tight knit. Overall, this project gave me a better understanding on the industrial revolution. Before this the industrial revolution was just some other time in history.