Gorbachev and 1989

I don't think it can be stressed enough the influence Gorbachev had on the revolutions of 1989. After we discussed it in class it became clear to me what exactly his role was in the revolutions. While he did not directly cause the revolutions he was more of a gate keeper. He opened the gate with his reforms and his U.N. speech. The reforms gave hope to the people of the U.S.S.R. that things could get better and the the U.N. gave the people that extra confidence boost. In the speech Gorbachev stated that he felt that it was wrong for one country to interfere with another countries affairs. With this speech Gorbachev opened the door to revolutions. Any other time that a country had attempted to revolt before the Soviets came in and crushed the rebellion with Prague Spring. The promise that the Soviets would no longer invade took immense fear away from the people. No longer did they have to fear the mighty Russians coming in, they only had to overthrow their own government. Now the reason for the revolutions was years of abusive governments and poor living conditions. While Gorbachev may not have caused the reasons for the revolutions he allowed them to happen.

The Turning Point

Its ironic that the same year, 1977, that Jimmy Carter gave a toast to the Shah commending him for his achievement in stabilizing Iran that the critical turning point in the revolution would occur and Iran would be plunged into chaos. Im speaking of course about the newspaper article declaring Ayatollah Khomeini to be a homosexual and an agent of the British. The Shah at the time controlled all the newspapers so he must have been aware that this article was going to be published. Allowing that article to be published was the tipping point in the revolution. After that there was no turning back. The people of Iran were outraged by this wild accusation. The cycles of protests and riots that followed were in direct response to the article. People would then return 40 days after the protests to morn the dead that were killed in the last protest. These protests severely undermined the Shah's power and damaged his public image. No longer was Iran seen as this pillar of stability but now cracks were starting to show. The curtain was being pulled back. Khomeini was able to influence the people more as a result of the protests. With more influence Khomeini was easily able to force the Shah out of power. The Shah signed his own death warrant by allowing the article to be published.

Mao's integrity

In class one day someone raised the interesting question if Mao had integrity. The initial response from most of the class was no. Millions died under his reign, how could a man with integrity allow that to happen. But when I examined the question more I began to look at it from a different angle. Yes a huge number of people died under Mao's rule but Mao said that people were going to die from the beginning. In one of his speeches he says that violence might have to happen for goals to be reached. This is honesty. Mao is not promising that he will achieve what he wants through non-violnent means. Mao was being honest. Part of having integrity is being honest. The other part is having strong moral values and in Mao's mind he did have them. The Great Leap Forward, while being a complete and utter failure and causing the death of millions of people, had good intentions. Mao was only thinking of his country. He saw that China was behind the rest of the world and he tried to get it up to pace. He could've been selfish and only be interested in his own personal gain. But he kept his own personal interests at bay and while many of his decisions are very questionable in his mind they were always for the better of his country.

Was Gandhi a Failure?

Gandhi was able to accomplish manny wonderful feats in his life. He had accomplished things like the Salt March and fighting against the Rowlatt Acts that helped in the fight for India's independence. But from the start Gandhi made it clear that he wanted to not only for India to gain independence but for it to be done without violence. And with all the violence and death that happened in Gandhi's campaign for independence it raises the question, was Gandhi a failure? The immediate response would be no due to Gandhi's fame and the fact that India did gain his importance. And while it is true that Gandhi became an idol for non-violence protest and that India did indeed gain its freedom, they did it with violence. That is why I believe that Gandhi was indeed a failure with his attempt to liberate India. Even Gandhi himself considered him to be a failure. In satyagraha Gandhi stresses the importance of non-violence. "Satyagraha is gentle, it never wounds." (Quote from the Satygraha handout) Gandhi failed to do what mattered most, to protest peacefully. But during his fight for freedom there was countless violence especially at the end when thousands of Indians died when the separate state of Pakistan was created. In Gandhi's eyes this was the biggest failure possible. All of his hard work had ended up in the killing of thousand of Indian's, the very people he was trying to free. This tragedy out weighed all the good things that Gandhi was able to accomplish. Because Gandhi was unable to liberate India without violence he was a failure.


Links about Salt March and Rowlatt Acts:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowlatt_Act

Why can't we all be equal?

Communism, sounds great in theory. Everyone is equal and everyone shares everything. It almost brings up ideas learned when young at pre-school. In a perfect world communism might be able to be a functional form of government. But when communism is examined closer its cracks start to show. If a sewer worker is paid the same a doctor does that take away from the prestige of the job? Some would say yes because the doctor is being paid less. Marx would counter with that people only think that because they have been programmed by capitalism and only value things with monetary value but never the less if a communist society was to function properly this issue would have to be addressed. Another flaw with communism is that if everyone is paid the same amount of money whats the motivation for working. Again Marx would counter that by saying that is a capitalist view because you are judging it based on money and that people would just do what they want to do. But that raises the question of who will do what has to be done. Who will clean the sewers, who will be the garbage men, who do the tasks that no one wants to do. What will be their incentive to do so. They cannot be paid more because then that defeats the purpose of communism. Another flaw in communism is that whoever is in power has control of everything because everything is owned by the state. This makes the person in charge highly likely of being corrupt because people who have power very often will want more of it and not want to give it up. Communism is a good idea on paper but when its actually used in real life things get complicated.

Link about Karl Marx: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Does Hard Work Always Pay Off?

Samuel Smiles was many things a physician, editor, secretary of two railroads, and an author. One of his most popular books was a book titled "Self-Help: Middle-Class Attitudes". The book became a hit in England. The book expressed many ideas of individualism and the idea that hard work will pay off in the long run. In the book Smiles says that institutions only harm people, that they make cause people to become dependent on them. He even goes as far to say, "Perhaps the best they can do is, to leave him free to develop himself and improve his individual condition...". I heavily disagree with this statement. Institutions can do lots to help people better their lives. Institutions can give underprivileged people the opportunity to achieve more. Colleges for instance give scholarships to allow people who wouldn't normally be able to pay to go to the college. Those individuals were helped by institutions are presented with opportunities to better lives. Charter schools also have a similar practice with having a free lottery for kids to come to their schools. The charter schools are an institution that also can help the individual. Another idea that is expressed in his book is the idea that hard work will always pay off. While this is a nice idea and works in theory it is just simply not true. It is a sad fact of life that sometimes you will fail and someone else who did no work will succeed. It might be on a test that you study hard for but don't do as well as you want and someone else in the class cheats. Or as someone in class mentioned you might work hard for a job and the job might just go to the bosses son. Samuel Smiles had the right intention in writing a book that tried to make people self-dependant but many of his ideas like criticizing institutions and saying that hard work will always pay off were just wrong.






Link about charter schools:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

Enlightenment ideas and the Haitian Revolution

Enlightenment ideas not only effected the French revolution but they also had a great affect on the Haitian revolution. More than half of the Haitian population was slaves. And ideas were spreading about freedom and liberty. The slaves would hear news of the french revolution from the french sailors at the docks. The new ideas of freedom inspired them. These idea gave them hope that France would give them freedom. The slaves of Haiti grew tired of waiting for France to abolish slavery but France finally abolished slavery. But their freedom was being questioned by invading Spanish and British forces that might reinstall slavey. The newly freed slaves had to fight and they found their leader in Toussant, a former slave himself. A man who once knew the pain of being oppressed. The slaves needed a leader who had the same enlightenment ideas embedded in them. These enlightenment ideas were so strong in the slaves that it forced them to fight for what they believe in. They had to fight for their freedom because someone was taking it away from them. The enlightenment ideas would not fade away either. When Toussant was arrested and Leclerc took the arms of the slaves away, they rebelled. They feared that their freedom would be taken away again so they fought back the French. The haitian revolution was able to happen because of enlightenment ideas. They gave the slaves something to fight for even if was against all odds. It was because of that determination that the Haitian revolution was able to be the first successful slave revolt in history.



Link for picture:http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002-p4/baker_p4_12-01_db/images/ouverture.1.gif

Information on enlightenment ideas:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment