Gorbachev: Did Being Selfless Hurt?

Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, is "infamous" for the collapse of the USSR. However, Gorbachev was a very selfless leader. His main reforms were centered around helping the people of Russia and the entirety of the USSR. He was an advocate of democratization, freedom of speech, and economic restructuring so as to improve the Soviet economy. Unfortunately the results were, severe inflation, a widening gap between the rich and poor, and ultimately the destruction of the Soviet Union and the fall of Communism.

Gorbachev, did not intend to put the USSR in a worse state, but unfortunately that was the reality. One leader, with good intentions, managed to ruin years of communistic alliance in eastern Europe. This brings me to the question, what if Gorbachev were more selfish and ruthless? Obviously being a considerate leader did not get him anywhere, but what would have happened if Gorbachev had been a ruthless dictator and cared only about consolidating the power of the communist?

Personally, I think although it may not have been in the best interest of the people, he would have at least succeeded in maintaining the power of the USSR. Had Gorbachev shifted his focus, he may not have had to deal with the collapse of communism in Russia. Although selfish leaders are ill regarded in history, their strictness, in some situations, has led to strengthened nations. For example tightfisted rulers like Stalin and Xiaoping have turned dictator rule to economic prosperity. Despite harsh dictator rule, Stalin made Russia's steel industry prosperous. Xiaoping despite suppressing protests in China and stripping Chinese citizens of the freedom of speech, helped launch China into an economic powerhouse. In summation, maybe if Gorbachev wasn't such a lenient and selfless leader, he may have been able to achieve more.

Justice Served

For years, Americans have been dealing with the fallout from September 11, 2001 and other various terrorist attacks. May 1st, 2011 was an important day in the American war on terrorism; the American government successfully killed highly ranked terrorist, Osama bin Laden. This was a great victory for America, but this victory over terrorism brings with it many worries: Will terrorists retaliate? Should we rejoice that we killed another human being? Is justice really served?

The concern of terrorists avenging bin Laden's death seems highly probable. With other highly ranking terrorists expressing anger over a fallen leader and messages to America from bin Laden's sons, revenge is not an impossibility. It is smart to worry about the pending threat of another terrorist attack, but we should not let it way down the way we live our lives in America. Everyday we face the same threat, even before the death of bin Laden so all we can do is prepare our selves and continue living.

As far as the morality of rejoicing at the death of another person, the death of Osama bin Laden is symbolic. We should not rejoice at the thought of another person being dead, but instead appreciate that Americans have moved further on the war against terrorism. We should also use this as a opportunity for Americans to rally together and share a sense of pride in America. The idea that a man was killed is not one meant for rejoicing, but the step forward that Americans are taking is truly important.

Whether or not justice has been served depends on personal preference. There have been a lot of stories that the families of 9/11 victims have not felt the impact of the death and I agree that this will not bring back there loved one. I cannot say whether or not justice was served, but I believe that this is a major step forward for America.

A Critique of Dictator Propaganda

In the Russian Revolution and the Chinese revolution, there were two common threads and those were Communism and dictators. In these two communist countries there were unrelenting and unbending rulers: Mao Zedong and Joesph Stalin. In the Chinese revolution, Mao held China tightly in his fists. He was unrelenting in policies and at one point had almost absolute control of China. The same happened in Russia, Stalin was overbearing and dominant. He harshly and rigidly inflicted his will upon the people of Russia. With Stalin and Mao being such fierce rulers it brings me to the questions: why did Stalin and Mao, who neglected the opinion of others, care so much about how people perceived them? What was the purpose of pro-Stalin propaganda and pro-Mao propaganda?

In my opinion, I believe that Stalin and Mao did not necessarily care about what people thought about them, but rather what their supporters perceived they were doing with their power. In Stalin propoganda, there are visuals of productivity and happiness. Despite the oppression going on in Stalin-ruled Russia, Stalin always tried to project to his international supporters (country leaders envious of Russia's productivity during the Great Depression) that Russia was not only effective but it was what the ideal of what Russia's people expected out of government. Stalin's use of propaganda was to project a positive image of Russia to the world, which unfortunately did not reflect the actuality.

The same can be said of Mao. Mao constantly projected himself as the Red Sun that will guide China. Mao painted himself (literally) as the savior of China. In my opinion, the purpose of Mao's propaganda was to convince his supporters (the peasants) that despite the constant risk of imprisonment and famine, he was still somehow helping the people gain a China that was productive like the West and family oriented. Mao's propaganda generally served to convince his people that despite the harsh reality of China under Mao, that his methods will lead them to happiness and prosperity. Mao and Stalin used propaganda to basically hide the dark reality of life under their rule.

Mohandas Gandhi: A Long-term Success

Gandhi, the man responsible for leading a revolution in the footsteps of nonviolence, setting a precedents for generations to come, and the icon of peace thought himself to be a failure. Gandhi despite many successful protests like the Salt March, believed that he was a failure simply because he (a normal human being) could not prevent the partition of India and Pakistan. Gandhi took this burden upon his shoulders in the belief that he failed humanity, but what he fails to understand is that humanity failed him. He was one man trying to change the minds of many strong-willed individuals and because he could not cause them to waver in their support of the partition, he died believing that he was a failure.

With all respect to Gandhi, I staunchly disagree; Gandhi in no way was a failure. Gandhi was a teacher. Teaching was his only responsibility. He taught at his own expense and dedicated his life to sharing his message of satyagraha, civil disobedience, noncooperation, and most importantly peace. He sacrificed everything to teach, even spending several years in jail to ensure that his goal was reached; he cannot be held liable for the fact that his teaching apparently fell on deaf ears. In my opinion Gandhi in no way failed. He held up his part of the bargain, but his students did not hold theirs.

Above all, someone with Gandhi's international iconic status should not even be considered a failure. Years after his death, people still follow in his traditions of peaceful resistance. Even our country, America, learned from Gandhi and took into account his principles as shown with Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movements. He is also a world wide symbol of peace. He is in literature, film, and even o stamps. His enormous impact after death is no short of remarkable; a failure could not achieve this much.

What do you believe? Do you beleive that someone with the accomplishments of Gandhi, world wide appeal and iconic status is a failure? Or do you feel that because he could not do the impossible and prevent partition that Gandhi was a failure?

What's Mubarak's Plan?

We are all aware of the tense situation in Egypt. The streets are filled with angry people crowding the streets and forming violent mobs sending Egypt into a state of complete chaos. The problems began over President Mubarak and his almost dictator government. People are now protesting his government and are searching for democracy. The people are tired of his reign and want to elect a new leader- Now! Mubarak who has been president for about thirty years is still in control of Egypt or at least we thought he was until February 10th 2011 when Mubarak made a speech.

In his speech he gave power to his Vice President Omar Suleiman, but at the same time he refused to step down before the next election. So here are the big questions. Who is in power Mubarak or Suleiman? Who has control over Egypt, the president or Vice President? Why won't Mubarak do his people a favor and step down? Finally, the most unanswerable question, what will happen next?

As of now it seems that Suleiman is in control, after all he now has the power of the president. Suleiman does have a growing support in Egyptian politics, but that does not mean he is actually the one in charge. Despite giving up his power, Mubarak is still the president and still has tremendous political power. Although, in my personal opinion, I feel that the most influential power is in the hands of the Egyptian people and as we see now they will not settle unless they are happy. Mubarak's measure seems to be his way of buying time, but he still has the power of influence and he knows it. Despite giving up his power, his word affects the entire political scene of Egypt. My final conclusion on this topic is that Mubarak is buying time and it is a matter of time before the Egyptians reclaim their powers as citizens and eventually their government.

Before the speech, it was rumored that Mubarak would just step down and grant Egypt some peace after so many violent protests, but Mubarak had another plan in mind. It is speculated that he did not step down because he was able to get the backing of military in Egypt. He was probably able to offer concessions to maintain support for his highly protested presidency. With military support he could maintain his position. Another theory may be that he actually does believe that he can help the Egyptian people. He may feel like he can meet all their demands and is trying to save face before the September elections? What do you think?

Well we can never know for sure what will happen in Egypt, but i believe that until Mubarak is gone the riots will continue. No matter what Mubarak tries to do, his thirty year run is over, and majority of the Egyptians are done with him. Many are speculating that Mubarak may not remain in power, and if he does it will be violent. Egypt has a long road ahead and as of now and after Mubarak's mixed speech, the future is more unclear than ever.

Sources:

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110211/pl_yblog_exclusive/mubarak-stays-on-key-questions-and-answers
• http://cdn.venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/egypt-protests.jpg
  

The Industrial Revolution: The Children

http://cvoll.sbintz.com/socsj.jpg

The image above may seem out of the ordinary, but for the Industrial Revolution, which set off a boom in population, technology, and industry in 18th century England. In the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the 1780s, factories saw enormous growth with new technologies like the steam engine, spinning jenny, and the water frame. They made factories more efficient and transportation much easier. England also had all that was necessary to form a booming economy. They had a good government, an expansive empire, raw goods, mainly coal, were at their disposal, they had workers due to the Enclosure, and most importantly, they had a large consumer base.

The scene above is not unusual. In the time of the Industrial Revolution, children were a favorable mode of labor. They were cheap. Children as young as six years old could work up to 19 hours a day for little or no pay. They were easy to take advantage of and discipline. Children were brutally beaten in factories by overseers. Their small size was taken advantage of. They were put in dangerous situations. Factory conditions were dangerous because of the use of large and heavy equipment. Many accidents occured in these factories were injured, maimed, or even killed.

These children were made to work out of poverty. They were either orphaned and open to being taken advantage of by selfish factory owners. Even the orphans who were protected by orphanages were sent to work in these harsh factories. Other children went to work with their families who wanted to keep everyone together. These reasons only reinforce how children were taken advantage of. They never seemed to have an option when they were sent to work in these harsh and unforgiving factories.

TO READ CHILLING ACCOUNTS OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES CLICK HERE

Sources:
cvoll.sbintz.com/socsg.html/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kahlenberg_steam_engine.jpg
http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/childreno1.htm
http://www.suite101.com/content/children-as-workers-during-the-industrial-revolu-a89230

Toussaint L'Ouverture, was the leader of the Haitian Revolution. He constantly changed sides, but in the end, he was the driving force behind Haiti's revolution. His intense negotiation skills and commitment were his key features during the Haitian Revolution. The question is: Was there no other choice than for Toussaint to lead the rebel slaves in battle? or Was the Haitian Revolution inevitable?

Haiti was a rich and prosperous country. It was once a precious jewel to the French economy with its endless profits. The only problem was how this profit was made. For years Haiti, or Saint-Domingue as it was previously known as, generated its economy off of slave labor. Slaves worked the sugar plantations and cultivated the coffee farms.

Haiti continued on like this, but with a sharp societal divide between the while elite, the free mixed race, and the slaves. For years the whites had enjoyed all the rights entitled to a citizen, but the mixed race, although free remained subordinate. The initial spark of fighting was between these two classes the white and the mixed race. The mixed race community longed for equality with their white counterparts and thus entreatied to France for such equality. In the wake of the French Revolution an as Enlightenment ideas of equality, liberty, and fraternity spread, these demands did not seem impossible. However, France did not know what was to ensue with all this talk of civil and political equality.

The slaves who were constantly mistreated also yearned for the same liberties as preached by the French radicals. Despite knowing what freedom would be like, the slaves were sure that they wanted it. This mentality began the Haitian Revolution and set into motion swift rebellion and opposition from the slaves. The slaves now attacked their masters and the tables had been turned. They knew that they wanted freedom and knew that the same violence that was used on them was to be used on their enemies.

The Haitian Revolution shook up the French government and launched a turbulent relationship between Haiti and the French government. There was a long battle over the institution of slavery and only pure chaos was the result. This leads me to say that the revolution was inevitable simply because of its cause. The hypocrisy in which France was involved in would not have warranted any other outcome. This was worsened by the French government's hesitation to grant them this equality, which we saw with the mixed race population's petition for equality and eventually with the slaves petition for freedom. This left the slaves with no other option than to fight. The French radical government encouraged ideals of liberty, fraternity, and equality. With these ideals being spread throughout the French political system and society, everyone wanted such, even the slaves of its colonies. The slaves were given no choice but to fight France. Until the slaves received what they thought belonged to all of France and its colonies, they would have never stopped. It just simply became a matter of when the slave revolt would happen. To summarize it all, the Haitian Revolution was in deed inevitable. The slaves had to rebel to get what they demanded of France: liberty and inequality. It was only a matter of time before the slaves expected what almost all of France was guaranteed and revolution was the only way to achieve it.