Latin American Revoultions

The essential questions that were given were “Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American revolutions evidence of this social imperative? We studied the impact of the independence of classes in Latin America by reading over articles that summarized the events that occurred in the countries. After reading the summary timelines were made to show in chronological order the major events that took place while trying to become free of their classes. Each group summarized a different revolution and they each presented their findings so that everyone understood each revolution.

Between all the revolutions there were 2 major differences and commonalities. First of all, all countries were fighting against the same type of government, a monarchy. Also they were all trying to change that monarchy into a different form of government as well. The differences between the countries were that Brazil was mostly peaceful in their revolution, while Columbia was very militaristic, and Mexico was a combination of the two. Race was an issue for all three of the countries through one way or another. In  Mexico, lower groups such as mestizos and slaves revolted due to being less privileged. In  Brazil, the people didn't want their races being undermined by other races in Europe. The  people of other races than Portuguese in Brazil became suspicious when Pedro will only hire people of Portuguese descent. Lastly, in Colombia the people from South America didn't want to be oppressed by the people of  Spanish descent.

Today society has created stereotypes. This is how we judge people without really ever meeting them and it heavily affects people of different race. An example of race affecting us now is the Ferguson case. This is extremely controversial because a young black man was shot and the police officer was not charged under any account which is extremely upsetting to a large population of the country. I think that race is an extremely important part of society now, but in the wrong way. If we were to stop talking about race is the only way from not being racist because if we keep speaking about race the way we do now then people are going to continue to be racist.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-decision/index.html

Ferguson news

Toussaint Louverture

Toussaint Louverture

What makes a good leader? Does he/she have to be strong, compassionate or have morals and be politically skilled? The people of Saint Domingue needed a leader and  Toussaint Louverture tried to lead the French colony. The colony is made up of a majority of slaves working on sugar plantations looked over by white landowners. The slaves greatly outweighed the population of the whites on the island and they were tired of being a slave. Toussaint Louverture united the slaves to fight the French and free them from their slavery, and he took control of Saint Domingue. Even though his accomplishments as a  military and a ruler of Saint Domingue are important, his role as a liberator of slaves is much more significant.   

As a military leader Toussaint Louverture was successfully able to untie slaves to fight against the French trying to repress the slaves and stopping them from becoming free. Toussaint Louverture was born a slaved in the island of Hispaniola and as he grew older he became a an overseer of fellow slaves in the fields.  Eventually, he rented a coffee plantation and received some slaves to work them. Later on, when the French were revolting in their own country, the same ideas spread to Hispaniola. The ideas of freedom that these French philosophers were speaking of  greatly influenced the population of slaves on the island to start a rebellion. Toussaint did his best to try and promote the slaves to fight back and in no time he had an army of 4,000 men. He taught his troops both guerrilla style warfare as well as a more traditional European style too. Him and his troops were able to successfully take control of the French Colony, Saint Domingue, but his role as a military commander was not over. Napoleon was now in power in France and he was planning to send of troops to take back the island, but Toussaint had his own problems. Hyacinthe Moyse was angry of the fact that he was using his military power to force  former slaves to go back to working on the plantations. Moyse at the time was also a military commander in Toussaint’s army and when he was given the orders to separate the “ large plantations of the north to smaller holdings” (Doc. E) he decided to revolt. This is what Moyse had done, “On the night of October 29 [1801] a revolt broke out on the Northern Plain- whites were massacred from Fort Liberte to the gates of Cap Francais….The war cry of the rebels was ‘General Moyse is with us-death to all whites” (Doc. E). In response to the revolt  Toussaint made specific people stand out among regiments to be shot, and Moyse was killed by a firing squad. Even though Toussaint in this case is seen as very harsh and cruel his abilities in war must not be overlooked. He was able to stop the most powerful military with the slaves that inhabited the island in Saint Domingue. Just because his decisions may seem unjust the fact that he was able to create an army out of the slaves working on plantations is why he must not be seen as a cutthroat or barbaric commander. However, his role as a leader and liberator of slaves is much more significant than his role as a military leader.  

Toussaint Louverture accomplishments as a ruler were what made Saint Domingue able to make themselves self reliant. WIthout Toussaint the colony would have fallen into shambles, they needed a strong leader to look over them. They needed someone to tell them they had to work on the plantations, even if they didn’t want to. The people needed to keep the sugar fields running if they wanted any chance of being their own nation. Those sugar fields gave them the blood they needed to stay alive through the income that fields provided. If no one were to tell them to work the fields then Saint Domingue economic system would collapse and the dream of an independent nation would crumble underneath them. Toussaint made the hard decisions, even though they seem wrong they were necessary. He said “As soon as a child can walk, he should be employed on the plantation to his strenght in some useful work”(Doc. D) This may seem harsh, but in the situation it was a requirement because to be able to stay independent they needed to have a sustainable economic system. This system was run by the plantations on the island  and they needed all the help they could get. Toussaint also had to keep order on the island and he did this by limiting speech and by punishing those who did not report crimes. He limited speech to hopefully stop a rebellion trying to underthrown him by questioning his means of how he rules. In addition, he set up laws that punished those who did not report crimes. This also was put in place to keep order and to promote people to turn in those who did not follow Toussaint’s laws. Toussaint was able to successfully rule Saint Domingue as well as keep order in the new independent society.

Toussaint Louverture’s most impressive feat is by far his abolition of slavery in the western part of Hispaniola. Slavery is one of the worst things a human has created. Forcing someone to work for you against their will is horrible. Toussaint was able to stop this practice by encouraging the 500,000 slave population to revolt against the 32,000 whites controlling the island. This act gave the slave population control of the island as well as making the slaves free from the whites. Toussaint Louverture lifted the spirits of 500,000 men and took and smashed their binds connected them to the whites of Saint Domingue. This freedom gives the former slaves the ability to do something with their lives, and even to make them happy. Toussaint has given them lives in which they can do what they want. They are not binded to slavery anymore. He has given freedom to the slave population and that is one of the greatest things someone can do in a lifetime. Toussaint should be most remembered for his liberation of slaves because giving freedom to 500,000 people is better than being a good military commander or a good leader. Effecting that many people so positively is by far the best way we can remember Toussaint and it gives his life the most justice. As Toussaint Louverture wrote “But today, when they have left it, if they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than to be subjected again to slavery” (Doc. B). This shows how important it was for these people to be unslaved. They would sacrifice a thousand lives before they would be in slavery again, which proves how much it meant for Toussaint and for the slaves to be free from their “owners”. Louverture’s most important contribution in his life is his liberation of slaves in Saint Domingue and he should  be remembered for his efforts in fighting against slavery.

Although Toussaint had major contributions as a military leader and a ruler of Saint Domingue his abolition of slavery in the French colony should be what he is most remembered for. He has done  great in his life and his harsh ruling and military commandment should not overshadow the magnificent things he has done in his life. Toussaint should not be remembered as being cruel, but as a man who freed 500,000 men, women, and children from slavery.

Document E- Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007

Document D- Toussaint Louverture, “Proclamation, 25th November 1801.”

Document B- Toussaint Louverture, “Letter to the French Directory, November 1797.”

Revolutions in Europe

The essential question that our class had to discuss was were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded.  The essential question is asking if any of the revolutions in Europe were a success, and the people rebelling gained something they were seeking by rebelling. To learn about the different revolutions we read through articles regarding each revolution. Groups were made for each revolution and in every group quizzes were made so that we could understand each revolution.

   The Revolution that I covered was the Frankfurt Revolution. The people of Germany were trying to create a constitutional monarchy, some of the more radical revolutionists wanted a constitutional monarchy. This Revolution occurred in 1848 and was a failure because the people revolting got almost nothing out of it. Since the King was a conservative (Fredrick William IV) he refused requests that didn't agree with his own thinking of trying to create less of an imbalance between the upper and middle classes. The Prussian military also posed a huge threat to the revolution itself and  when the King refused their offer many moved to other countries. Others were killed in the act of revolting and many went to prison. King Frederick said  at the opening of the First United Landtag in Prussia(in 1848) “No Piece of Paper Will Come between Myself and My People,” This statement shows how he was not going to budge on any of the new ideas by those who were revolting.This is a poem is by Ernst Moritz Arndt "Where is the German's fatherland? Then name, oh, name the mighty land!" The poem shows how the revolutionists want a more unified Germany that is not separated by the classes and is more balanced between the middle and upper classes.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8RRSV9X

I believe that the revolutions in Europe were a for the majority a failure. The Hungary, Decembrist revolts and the  Frankfurt assemble were failures. The Decembrist revolt wanted Constantine as king, but he did not take the thrown so instead Nicholas took over the crown. The people did not like him because he was not the liberal leader they wanted. They people got oppressed by Nicholas and no positives came out of the revolution. Next, The Hungary revolution was another failure. Even though they took control of Budapest for a short amount of time Austrian and Russian forces took Budapest back over and many were imprisoned, executed or forced into exile. The Frankfurt revolution was already explained and that too was a  failure which is why I believe that the European were a failure.

The Congress of Vienna

The essential question of the class was, what should people in power do when power is threatened? This question was asked in connection with the Congress of Vienna which was formed to solve problems between countries in Europe. To inform ourselves of the Congress, we read a background reading about what happened during the meetings of the great powers in Europe and who was represented. We also looked at a map of Napoleon's conquered land and there was another reading about the new problems each empire would have to face, and their goals they would like to accomplish. 

What should people in power do when power is threatened? The Congress of Vienna sought out to retain their power of their nation and wanted to stop revolutions from happening. For one, they devised the Holy Alliance. This said that monarchs had a divine right and any revolution was treason and against god. In the 1800's religion had even more of an impact than it had today, and by saying that if you were to go against the monarchy then you would be going against god. This was a very big deal, and frankly still is which is why this was put in place to hopefully stop threats against their power. By having the major powers (except for England, Protestant) partake in this meant that anyone going against the monarchy would be condemned to hell, which in theory stop the people from an uprising. 

I don't think it was the best thing for the Congress of Vienna to create the Holy Alliance because I feel that it would only make the people madder. If I was revolting and they told me that if I went against the monarchy I would be going against god I would rebel even more. Just because you have royal blood doesn't mean that if I go against you that I should go to hell. I feel that a better way to react was to give the people what they want so that they listen to you more after you have fulfilled their wants. I think the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their own power in most circumstances if it makes sense, if that's what is needed to help the people. 

Napoleon Bonaparte

What was Napoleon's impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe? This question has been asked after going over Napoleon, the leader of France. The question asks what was Napoleon’s impact of the systems of Europe. This question can easily be asked as “What did Napoleon do to change Europe?” In class we went over articles regarding Napoleon, and also we watched a movie about his life.

Napoleon had a very large impact on the economic, political and social systems of Europe and other conquered nations. Economically Napoleon did a lot to improve and try to boost France's income. France controlled the prices of goods and encouraged trading. By doing this other countries had to compete with this economic powerhouse  which changed the way each country had to trade and interact with other countries. Also the Bank of France was established  and the budget was balanced, and public work programs were made, which introduced the idea of work programs into Europe in a bank.. Napoleon even brought in an entirely new Social system called 'meritocracy'. This system rewarded people based on their skill rather than their social class. More of the population were also given the right to own property and education had become more accessible.

My opinion of Napoleon is that I generally liked him. I think that he is more interesting than other men of history. His ideas of helping the lower class and making life more fair by introducing meritocracy into France. The fact that social class was based more on skill was a great idea in my book. Also Napoleon seemed like we wasn’t just some war mongering villain. He had purpose for his conquering which was to make France as powerful as he could. This in fact, is why I like him. Trying to make his country the best it can be, not a personal mission to control the world.  His improvements of France as a country is just staggering and he became a truly powerful leader.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-oK-JYgd0OkCH6_EvUHHIfuDvbIAQ_pEjBk3yxtOq8jJt4UTRcGnt52f0iXSZRq5gK7T8PhY3Sc1MzoDtsU5ACV_YKuU3qa0Mqb_E4Hs9id0lDPtQcPVIIInSAUvQjFvjT-kU4ATLUXkK/s1600/Napoleon-Bonaparte.jpg

Socialism and Communism

In class each student was given chocolate. This chocolate was meant to represent the total amount of wealth earned in each type of economic system. In capitalism for example a majority of students got 3 chocolate, but some students received 10. After the candy was handed out every student has to play Rock Paper Scissors. If you won your game you got chocolate, but if you lost you had to give the victor one of your pieces. When you ran out you sat down. However, in Socialism you didn't have to play like in capitalism, and  if you did lose all your candy you were supplied with more. The game was fun because I goo eat chocolate. It was also frustrating though because  other people may have had an unfair advantage compared to you which became annoying.

Marx and Smith both had very different ideas to help the poor, but in theory do their job. Marx's idea is that through the changes to capitalism to socialism and finally to communism will improve the lives of the poor. Communism allows the people to all have equal pay which for the poor would be perfect. This would give them a boost in society and even the playing field so that the rich nobility is the same of the commoners. However, Smith's idea is very different. His idea is to let the invisible hand help the poor. The invisible is allows wealth to be distributed evenly over the course of time. It allows businesses  to compete with each other   so that the people can get the best quality and price for what they want. This allows economy to regulate itself.

In my opinion I think that Smith's is the best way because I feel that it is more natural approach to helping the poor. I think that Marx's ideas lead to a too fast paced change which would intern lead to worse living conditions. Even though Smith's may take longer it would help better in the long term, and would create better lives for the poor than Marxism.

MOSI Chat

Before the chat with Jamie we had done some activities so that we could be prepared for the conversation. For one, we made some questions we would like to ask him. This questions ranged from the hours of work of the mills to the dangers they might face. We also went on to their website, but we also saw an video of Jamie before the actually chat. Vocab was also learned so that we could understand the 'lingo' surrounding the cotton mills.

The chat with Jamie was very interesting. I never would have thought just how dangerous it was for people to clean and to work with the machines. The picture below is a shuttle, it would shoot fibers across the loom. This could malfunction and shoot out and potentially kill a worker. While cleaning some of the machines girls and children could be scalped if their hair got caught and they could get seriously injured by the moving parts of the machines. By seeing Jamie talk about the machines helped me to understand his job as the curator. I knew that he had to understand a lot about the topic he is talking about, but I never really realized the amount of dates and information he had to his memory. He knew everything about each machine he talked about to the year it was made to who made it. For families the looms were a way of getting income, but I felt that they relied to heavily on it. I think that there was probably another way they could have received money other than for making cloth. This made the loom both a positive and a negative for me because it both helped and hurt families.

I feel that I learned more from a outside expert. I think this because by talking to an outside expert it gave me another perspective to look from which can make it easier to understand the information. I didn't really dislike anything from the chat beside the quality of the chat, because if there was another way to have voice chats that were not as staggered that would the chat so much better. I would definitely want it to do it again with other experts for other topics.