Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Iran IRL, April 11, 2011.
URL; http://iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/islamic_revolution.php This link, which comes from the Iran Chamber Society, gives an Iranian perspective about the 1979 Revolution, which took Mohammad Reza Shah out of power and replaced him with Ayatollah Khomeini, who is, according to this article, the reason why Iran didn't go into civil war, since according to it, the country would have gone into civil war due to Shi'i opposition of the policies that were bringing change. New rules were put in place in Iran, including that women had to return to very conservative and strict styles of dress. It is also important to note that there was a reversal of "progressive" measures relating to gender relations. On November 4, Americans were taken as hostages, which demonstrates the resentment that the Iranians felt toward Americans, which might in part be related to the influence that America had over Shah, and he has been considered America's puppet. Also, Khomeini came up with a new Constitution that reflected his Islamic ideals. The importance of this is that it is the Iranian perspective of what we have learned in class, and this can be seen because there is evidently a spin on the wording that makes you realize this. For instance, the article presents the history as if Khomeini prevented the country from going into civil war, as if he, and his Islamic government which followed, saved the country (an opinion that many Iranians feel). This is valuable because it gives another perspective, but cannot be used as a historical reference if you want the American perspective, although some of the dates that are mentioned are valuable and give extra background.
Iran questions. April 12, 2011.
a. Explain how Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi modernized and westernized Iran - give specific examples. Why did he do this? How did different groups benefit or suffer under the reforms? How did the people of Iran respond?
A free press flourished, allowing for criticism and open speech about the Majlis. The Plan Organization also helped modernization as well, and would maximize oil revenues. An oil consortium was formed - the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now called British Petroleum. They held 40% of the shares. He also aligned his country with the West - in 1959 they signed a bilateral defense treaty with the United States. He spent millions of dollars on US weapons. The people of Iran did not feel comfortable with so many Americans in their country (mostly businessmen). In 1963 the Shah launched the White Revolution, which consisted of six points - land reform, nationalization of forests and pastures, privatization of government-owned factories, profit sharing for industrial workers, reforms in electoral laws, and formation of Literacy Corps. These affected landlords mostly, and farmers who needed to borrow money to grow their own crops. Many now turned critical of the regime, however Iranians were reaping the benefits due to better health facilities, which allowed for a growing population.
b. impact of Western influence - how did different groups respond? what benefits and drawbacks were there?
Benefits included better health facilities, greater access to education, and increased exports which made the economy sufficiently stronger, however the westernization of Iran was resented by the traditional merchant classes whose lives were being threatened by the import of consumer goods. The other drawback was that since the population of Tehran grew from 2.9 million to 4.4 million in 1976, migrant workers were faced with poor living conditions, building roads and supplying them with electricity and water in smaller villages, now unimportant, was not achieved. Essentially, though it seemed that the Iranians had nothing to complain about, there were plenty of drawbacks as well.
c. White Revolution - who led the revolution and why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
The Shah led this revolution, which was another name for his reforms. These reforms were put in place in order to achieve the following; sell land from large land-owners to peasants at affordable prices, protect Iran's natural resources, selling shares of government-0wned businesses to the public, sharing of profits for industrial workers, giving women equal rights, and fixing illiteracy rates. 99% of the population was said to have voted in favor of the reforms. The outside help came mostly from the United States, as businesspeople helped to establish American (western) business ideas in Iran. They were successful, although many Iranians became critical of the regime, especially those who were negatively affected such as farmers and land-owners.
d. Explain the following -
i. religious issues - The Shah wanted to bring back memories of Iran's pre-Islamic past, such as inscribing the Pahlavi Dynasty in the historical line of Persia's ancient monarchs, which was seen as a disrespect to Iran's Islamic heritage. The insistence on Iran's pre-Islamic past upset many. The Shah also wanted to replace Iran's Islamic calendar, which was very offensive to the Muslims.
ii. gender issues - A law in 1936 forced women to dress in Western clothes, and there was an increase of women in the workplace and literacy rates rose. In 1967 the family law was reformed...The new civil code protected women as wives, divorcees, and guardians of the children.
iii. cultural issues - The issue of Iran's pre-Islamic past as opposed to the present day culture - similar to the religious issues it was also a cultural issue since the people did not find their roots in the pre-Islamic culture and could not relate to it.
iv. health care - Better access to health care, and better health services at that, caused the Iranian population to increase rapidly especially in the capital.
vi. education - Illiteracy rates declined.
vii. what else? - Economic concerns - the petrol crisis, given that Iran's primary source of revenue is through the oil industry, but following the Arab-Israeli war, there was a massive increase in the prices.
e. 1979 revolution - explain who led the revolution, why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
Protesters who came from all segments of life revolted - men and women alike called for changes. They revolted because they were resentful of the changes that had been taking place and the Shah. The public sector and oil industry also went on strike, in support of the revolution. They did not have outside help but they were very successful given that while the Shah and his family were gone from Iran, a mutiny among airforce technicians triggered an uprising and the people came in support of Khomeini, who was left in charge while the Shah was gone, therefore the government of Bakhtiar had fallen and the Pahlavi dynasty had ended.. the revolution was successful.
A free press flourished, allowing for criticism and open speech about the Majlis. The Plan Organization also helped modernization as well, and would maximize oil revenues. An oil consortium was formed - the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now called British Petroleum. They held 40% of the shares. He also aligned his country with the West - in 1959 they signed a bilateral defense treaty with the United States. He spent millions of dollars on US weapons. The people of Iran did not feel comfortable with so many Americans in their country (mostly businessmen). In 1963 the Shah launched the White Revolution, which consisted of six points - land reform, nationalization of forests and pastures, privatization of government-owned factories, profit sharing for industrial workers, reforms in electoral laws, and formation of Literacy Corps. These affected landlords mostly, and farmers who needed to borrow money to grow their own crops. Many now turned critical of the regime, however Iranians were reaping the benefits due to better health facilities, which allowed for a growing population.
b. impact of Western influence - how did different groups respond? what benefits and drawbacks were there?
Benefits included better health facilities, greater access to education, and increased exports which made the economy sufficiently stronger, however the westernization of Iran was resented by the traditional merchant classes whose lives were being threatened by the import of consumer goods. The other drawback was that since the population of Tehran grew from 2.9 million to 4.4 million in 1976, migrant workers were faced with poor living conditions, building roads and supplying them with electricity and water in smaller villages, now unimportant, was not achieved. Essentially, though it seemed that the Iranians had nothing to complain about, there were plenty of drawbacks as well.
c. White Revolution - who led the revolution and why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
The Shah led this revolution, which was another name for his reforms. These reforms were put in place in order to achieve the following; sell land from large land-owners to peasants at affordable prices, protect Iran's natural resources, selling shares of government-0wned businesses to the public, sharing of profits for industrial workers, giving women equal rights, and fixing illiteracy rates. 99% of the population was said to have voted in favor of the reforms. The outside help came mostly from the United States, as businesspeople helped to establish American (western) business ideas in Iran. They were successful, although many Iranians became critical of the regime, especially those who were negatively affected such as farmers and land-owners.
d. Explain the following -
i. religious issues - The Shah wanted to bring back memories of Iran's pre-Islamic past, such as inscribing the Pahlavi Dynasty in the historical line of Persia's ancient monarchs, which was seen as a disrespect to Iran's Islamic heritage. The insistence on Iran's pre-Islamic past upset many. The Shah also wanted to replace Iran's Islamic calendar, which was very offensive to the Muslims.
ii. gender issues - A law in 1936 forced women to dress in Western clothes, and there was an increase of women in the workplace and literacy rates rose. In 1967 the family law was reformed...The new civil code protected women as wives, divorcees, and guardians of the children.
iii. cultural issues - The issue of Iran's pre-Islamic past as opposed to the present day culture - similar to the religious issues it was also a cultural issue since the people did not find their roots in the pre-Islamic culture and could not relate to it.
iv. health care - Better access to health care, and better health services at that, caused the Iranian population to increase rapidly especially in the capital.
vi. education - Illiteracy rates declined.
vii. what else? - Economic concerns - the petrol crisis, given that Iran's primary source of revenue is through the oil industry, but following the Arab-Israeli war, there was a massive increase in the prices.
e. 1979 revolution - explain who led the revolution, why did they revolt? who in society were their supporters? did they have outside help? how successful were they? were they successful or not?
Protesters who came from all segments of life revolted - men and women alike called for changes. They revolted because they were resentful of the changes that had been taking place and the Shah. The public sector and oil industry also went on strike, in support of the revolution. They did not have outside help but they were very successful given that while the Shah and his family were gone from Iran, a mutiny among airforce technicians triggered an uprising and the people came in support of Khomeini, who was left in charge while the Shah was gone, therefore the government of Bakhtiar had fallen and the Pahlavi dynasty had ended.. the revolution was successful.
Lebanon questions. April 12, 2011.
a. Civil wars - why? Who was on each side? Who won? Did either side have outside help? What was the regional or world context when the civil war was being fought?
Why? The central government was weak and had difficulty maintaining control over its citizens; religious, ethnic, and ideological differences caused tension, and place of reference and religious affiliation turned people against each other.
Who was on each side? Muslims versus Christians.
Who won? No one won, but the war was ended with the Taif Agreement, which allowed for a balanced ratio of Christians to Muslims in terms of government seats.
Did either side have outside help? The Israelis helped the Christians.
What was the regional or world context when the war was being fought? The Lebanese Civil War began only a few years after the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, thus it gives some context as to why Israel got involved in Lebanon; mostly to secure her border, which meant to train Christian armies so that they might win the war, since there was far less hostility than between Israel and Muslim Arabs.
b. Outside interference and reconstruction.. post-civil war.. explain.
The Arab League stepped in, hoping for peace in Lebanon, hence the Taif Agreement. This suggested changes would be made to the National Pact, so that this would make the ratio of those in power between Muslims and Christians equal. Additionally, the Syrian army pulled out in 2005, although there are still border disputes. Additionally, in 1991 the Lebanese Parliament passed an amnesty law that pardoned all political crime.
c. Confessional state- explain.
This refers to the National Pact and the system that it set up, and the way in which they sought to preserve the state through compromise, that is, the ratio of the population would be frozen and proportional representation (in government) was rejected so as to "protect" every religious community... nevertheless all it did was create greater division between each group. This division also affected all areas of life, given that each group came to dominate a particular area of the country - the Christians near Mt. Lebanon and on the coast, the Sunni Muslims close to the border with Syria, the Shi'as in the south near the Israeli border. Each group was also represented by its own political party.
d. Economic tensions - why? Who benefited? Who suffered? What changes took place?
There was tension between the Palestinians who had settled Lebanon and the Shi'as due to competition for the limited number of jobs. The lives of the Shi'as were at risk due to the fact that they were targets of Israeli raids, and since there was a mass migration of the Shi'a population of southern Lebanon into Beirut to look for jobs since the Palestinians took the majority of the jobs in the south, it seems that the Palestinians benefited, the Shi'as suffered, and the mass migration of the Shi'as was the main change that took place. This all led to the instability of the demographics of Lebanon as well.
e. Growth of militias and the PLO - who joined? why? goals? successes? failures?
For the most part the PLO was joined by Palestinians and posed a threat to the Israelis. They were an extremely powerful force in the 1970s and this led to conflict because Israel retaliated against the PLO with raids in Lebanon. This violated Lebanon's sovereignty and the legitimacy of their government was undermined. The Lebanese National Movement, which consisted mostly of Druze, fought alongside the PLO was well, mostly due to the fact that both groups were Muslim. The group Amal, mostly a Shi'a group, formed in defense of the Shi'a community, and finally Hezbollah formed, whose main target was Israel. The PLO didn't succeed in Lebanon because the Israelis forced them out, and all the militias with the exception of Hezbollah, which exists today still, were disbanded.
Why? The central government was weak and had difficulty maintaining control over its citizens; religious, ethnic, and ideological differences caused tension, and place of reference and religious affiliation turned people against each other.
Who was on each side? Muslims versus Christians.
Who won? No one won, but the war was ended with the Taif Agreement, which allowed for a balanced ratio of Christians to Muslims in terms of government seats.
Did either side have outside help? The Israelis helped the Christians.
What was the regional or world context when the war was being fought? The Lebanese Civil War began only a few years after the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, thus it gives some context as to why Israel got involved in Lebanon; mostly to secure her border, which meant to train Christian armies so that they might win the war, since there was far less hostility than between Israel and Muslim Arabs.
b. Outside interference and reconstruction.. post-civil war.. explain.
The Arab League stepped in, hoping for peace in Lebanon, hence the Taif Agreement. This suggested changes would be made to the National Pact, so that this would make the ratio of those in power between Muslims and Christians equal. Additionally, the Syrian army pulled out in 2005, although there are still border disputes. Additionally, in 1991 the Lebanese Parliament passed an amnesty law that pardoned all political crime.
c. Confessional state- explain.
This refers to the National Pact and the system that it set up, and the way in which they sought to preserve the state through compromise, that is, the ratio of the population would be frozen and proportional representation (in government) was rejected so as to "protect" every religious community... nevertheless all it did was create greater division between each group. This division also affected all areas of life, given that each group came to dominate a particular area of the country - the Christians near Mt. Lebanon and on the coast, the Sunni Muslims close to the border with Syria, the Shi'as in the south near the Israeli border. Each group was also represented by its own political party.
d. Economic tensions - why? Who benefited? Who suffered? What changes took place?
There was tension between the Palestinians who had settled Lebanon and the Shi'as due to competition for the limited number of jobs. The lives of the Shi'as were at risk due to the fact that they were targets of Israeli raids, and since there was a mass migration of the Shi'a population of southern Lebanon into Beirut to look for jobs since the Palestinians took the majority of the jobs in the south, it seems that the Palestinians benefited, the Shi'as suffered, and the mass migration of the Shi'as was the main change that took place. This all led to the instability of the demographics of Lebanon as well.
e. Growth of militias and the PLO - who joined? why? goals? successes? failures?
For the most part the PLO was joined by Palestinians and posed a threat to the Israelis. They were an extremely powerful force in the 1970s and this led to conflict because Israel retaliated against the PLO with raids in Lebanon. This violated Lebanon's sovereignty and the legitimacy of their government was undermined. The Lebanese National Movement, which consisted mostly of Druze, fought alongside the PLO was well, mostly due to the fact that both groups were Muslim. The group Amal, mostly a Shi'a group, formed in defense of the Shi'a community, and finally Hezbollah formed, whose main target was Israel. The PLO didn't succeed in Lebanon because the Israelis forced them out, and all the militias with the exception of Hezbollah, which exists today still, were disbanded.
Monday, April 11, 2011
IRL - Lebanon
URL; http://www.ghazi.de/civwar.html
This goes into detail about the Lebanese Civil War, which began on April 13, 1975 essentially when gunmen killed four Phalangists during an attempt on Pierre Jumayyil's life. The assassins were believed to have been Palestinian, and then later retaliation was done when a bus full of Palestinians going through a Christian neighborhood was attacked. According to this source, which is a short essay/informative summary of the beginnings of the Civil War, "Most Beirutis stayed inside their homes during these early days of battle, and few imagined that the street fighting they were witnessing was the beginning of a war that was to devastate their city and divide the country." Also important and worth noting is that many believed the civil war to be a result of Muslim and Christian tension, which is significant because the Lebanese population is divided between these two religions. The significance of this is that it gives some information about the ability (or lack thereof) of different groups in Lebanon to be able to coexist peacefully in the past, and gives me some background knowledge about some of the issues that we will be discussing in class most likely. It also provides some information about the background of Lebanon and the effect that its religious diversity, different from its neighboring countries, has had on its recent history. The primary limitation of this source is that it is somewhat opinion-based, and therefore may not be the best source of information on its own. However, it is essentially the same information as our class text, thus I trust that in essence it is valuable.
This goes into detail about the Lebanese Civil War, which began on April 13, 1975 essentially when gunmen killed four Phalangists during an attempt on Pierre Jumayyil's life. The assassins were believed to have been Palestinian, and then later retaliation was done when a bus full of Palestinians going through a Christian neighborhood was attacked. According to this source, which is a short essay/informative summary of the beginnings of the Civil War, "Most Beirutis stayed inside their homes during these early days of battle, and few imagined that the street fighting they were witnessing was the beginning of a war that was to devastate their city and divide the country." Also important and worth noting is that many believed the civil war to be a result of Muslim and Christian tension, which is significant because the Lebanese population is divided between these two religions. The significance of this is that it gives some information about the ability (or lack thereof) of different groups in Lebanon to be able to coexist peacefully in the past, and gives me some background knowledge about some of the issues that we will be discussing in class most likely. It also provides some information about the background of Lebanon and the effect that its religious diversity, different from its neighboring countries, has had on its recent history. The primary limitation of this source is that it is somewhat opinion-based, and therefore may not be the best source of information on its own. However, it is essentially the same information as our class text, thus I trust that in essence it is valuable.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Verdicts on Nasser.
Was Nasser good for Egypt? Is he the "charismatic and dynamic president that put Egypt back on the map?"
I believe, after reading Sources A through F and looking at the image in Source G, that Nasser was the "charismatic and dynamic president that put Egypt back on the map." Charismatic is a characteristic that refers to someone's ability to influence people and attract people to them, and it is very evident from 4 of the sources. Source C (obituary headline) says that he had "Hypnotic Power" over the Egyptians, which can be seen because he was able to create a number of changes during only his 18 years of leadership. Source E (from a book by an Egyptian writer) says he "signaled to the nation and it awoke; signaled to the army and it moved.." and so on, showing his great influential ways and the fact that he had power and control and was able to achieve. This source even mentions the word charisma. Source F (by another Egyptian writer) states that he "overwhelmed us with his magic", so it's evident from all of this, plus the fact that Source F mentions that Egypt had the strongest military in the Middle East, that at least from the Egyptian perspective (and regarding the matter, their perspective matters most), Nasser was influential, great, and had turned Egypt into a notable country, given that he increased military power significantly, was able to get rid of the monarchy, and according to Source A (Amin Howeidi), loved the common man. Source D, from the Minister of Public Health, calls Nasser "considerate, frank and decisive". It doesn't appear that, although his place on the political spectrum was relatively far to the left and he was trying to align Egypt with the Communist world, that he was that detrimental and it seems, at least from the perspective of an Egyptian as well as my perspective as an outsider, that he seems to have made something out of Egypt. The only setback, and counterclaim, being what Source B refers to when it mentions that Egypt was not victorious in war in 1967 (and this statement also came from an Egyptian, Hussein Dhu'l Fiqar Sabri, who wrote to an Egyptian weekly newspaper in 1975). So Nasser did have his weaknesses as well and might have overestimated Egypt's power, even though he had made progress and he was liked overall. This is evident also in Source G, given the picture of his funeral shows that many, many people attended.
I believe, after reading Sources A through F and looking at the image in Source G, that Nasser was the "charismatic and dynamic president that put Egypt back on the map." Charismatic is a characteristic that refers to someone's ability to influence people and attract people to them, and it is very evident from 4 of the sources. Source C (obituary headline) says that he had "Hypnotic Power" over the Egyptians, which can be seen because he was able to create a number of changes during only his 18 years of leadership. Source E (from a book by an Egyptian writer) says he "signaled to the nation and it awoke; signaled to the army and it moved.." and so on, showing his great influential ways and the fact that he had power and control and was able to achieve. This source even mentions the word charisma. Source F (by another Egyptian writer) states that he "overwhelmed us with his magic", so it's evident from all of this, plus the fact that Source F mentions that Egypt had the strongest military in the Middle East, that at least from the Egyptian perspective (and regarding the matter, their perspective matters most), Nasser was influential, great, and had turned Egypt into a notable country, given that he increased military power significantly, was able to get rid of the monarchy, and according to Source A (Amin Howeidi), loved the common man. Source D, from the Minister of Public Health, calls Nasser "considerate, frank and decisive". It doesn't appear that, although his place on the political spectrum was relatively far to the left and he was trying to align Egypt with the Communist world, that he was that detrimental and it seems, at least from the perspective of an Egyptian as well as my perspective as an outsider, that he seems to have made something out of Egypt. The only setback, and counterclaim, being what Source B refers to when it mentions that Egypt was not victorious in war in 1967 (and this statement also came from an Egyptian, Hussein Dhu'l Fiqar Sabri, who wrote to an Egyptian weekly newspaper in 1975). So Nasser did have his weaknesses as well and might have overestimated Egypt's power, even though he had made progress and he was liked overall. This is evident also in Source G, given the picture of his funeral shows that many, many people attended.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Films in PostWar Britain, March 18, 2011.
Sources;
http://www.totalfilm.com/shadows-of-progress-documentary-films-in-post-war-britain-1951-77
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216205/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Williams
The Shadow of Progress, a British documentary directed and written by Derek Williams in 1970, outlines the pollution of natural resources and the misuse of technology in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a multi-award winning documentary and its main focus was on environmental issues, which are directly connected with the increase of industrialization (which is what would have made the society more technologically advanced and expanded the consumer industry) as well as the need for greater energy as technology advanced. This connects back to the song "Lost in the Supermarket", by the Clash, as that song outlines the increasingly superfluous nature of the consumer industry. It is also known that with time came cars that required more fuel, bigger stores were being built, and the nature of innovation and change affected the quality of life for many people, but with this came the beginning of environmental concerns. The use of the word "progress" in the title of this documentary does represent the known progress in Britain and the negative side of industrialization, and the fact that the society was becoming more technologically advanced and innovative, which is related to the consumer industry and its changes, but the idea of the documentary is actually the OTHER side of it, as it outlines the effect that these changes had on the environment, hence the word "shadow" in the title (it was the hidden side of the progress that most were not giving as much mind to). So in a way, this documentary does demonstrate the mindset of Britain at the time, since the director of this documentary felt the need to bring to light the effects of "progress" that were taking place, giving the public the other side.
"The film exposed the consequences of industrialisation, particularly with regard to pollution, though coming prior to the identification of global warming, its focus is more on the visual impact and damage to wild-life and the lived environment. Over 1,900 copies of the film were printed and circulated in a number of languages and the film was twice shown by the BBC on prime time."
http://www.totalfilm.com/shadows-of-progress-documentary-films-in-post-war-britain-1951-77
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216205/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Williams
The Shadow of Progress, a British documentary directed and written by Derek Williams in 1970, outlines the pollution of natural resources and the misuse of technology in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a multi-award winning documentary and its main focus was on environmental issues, which are directly connected with the increase of industrialization (which is what would have made the society more technologically advanced and expanded the consumer industry) as well as the need for greater energy as technology advanced. This connects back to the song "Lost in the Supermarket", by the Clash, as that song outlines the increasingly superfluous nature of the consumer industry. It is also known that with time came cars that required more fuel, bigger stores were being built, and the nature of innovation and change affected the quality of life for many people, but with this came the beginning of environmental concerns. The use of the word "progress" in the title of this documentary does represent the known progress in Britain and the negative side of industrialization, and the fact that the society was becoming more technologically advanced and innovative, which is related to the consumer industry and its changes, but the idea of the documentary is actually the OTHER side of it, as it outlines the effect that these changes had on the environment, hence the word "shadow" in the title (it was the hidden side of the progress that most were not giving as much mind to). So in a way, this documentary does demonstrate the mindset of Britain at the time, since the director of this documentary felt the need to bring to light the effects of "progress" that were taking place, giving the public the other side.
"The film exposed the consequences of industrialisation, particularly with regard to pollution, though coming prior to the identification of global warming, its focus is more on the visual impact and damage to wild-life and the lived environment. Over 1,900 copies of the film were printed and circulated in a number of languages and the film was twice shown by the BBC on prime time."
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Case Study Questions, March 17, 2011.
1. Explain the following references:
a. "a state of prosperity" (source A) - this refers to the fact that the country was experiencing a cultural and economic boom, in particular at this time there was an increase in literature, music, and television in a way that made the culture seem far more modern and innovative.
b. "a mother's little helper" (source B) - this is a tongue-in-cheek reference to a housewife dealing with a demanding husband and bratty children.
2. Compare and contrast the views of Britain's consumer society expressed in Sources A and C.
Source A presents the idea of the state of Britain's consumer society as a positive, and a time where everyone is happy and benefiting. The source states "Most of our people have never had it so good", which implies that the new innovations are something that everyone is happy about (things such as shopping offers and consumer goods). The reference to a state of prosperity furthers this idea. On the other hand, Source C presents the other point of view, that which all of this is excess, hence "I can no longer shop happily" and "Long distance callers make long distance calls and the silence makes me lonely". It sounds as if this point of view is that there is nothing personally gained and that Britain's consumer society is rich in goods and things to buy and do, but that there is less intrinsic value and contrary to Source A, not everyone is happy about it. However, the thing both sources have in common is that they both acknowledge that there has been change.
3. Assess the origin, purpose, value, and limitations of sources A and C as historical documents.
Source A is a speech to a rally of Conservative supporters, made by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in 1957. The purpose of this portion of the speech is to demonstrate that there have been positive changes in Britain and that the people are happy and that everything seems financially sound. The value of this to someone looking at it as a historical document is that it does acknowledge change, and that there was indeed some sort of cultural/economic change that indeed made some people happy. It provides context and gives one an idea of how some people in Britain felt about the changes. The limitation, however, is that this is only one portion of the speech, thus it is unknown if other valuable information was stated before, and also the most important limitation is that the speaker is assessing other people's happiness ("our people have never had it so good"), when that is subjective and depends on how many people you survey and ask. I think as a historical document, this has some value but the limitations make it more of an opinion or one point of view than a fact.
Source C is part of the song "Lost in the Supermarket", by the Clash, from 1979. The purpose was to convey the other side of all of the changes to Britain's consumer society, and the fact that not everyone was necessarily happy about it, as the speaker in the song is not. The value is that this is one other point of view that works contrary to that in Source A, but similarly to Source A, the limitation encountered is that it is someone's opinion and shows their PERSONAL feelings ("I can no longer shop happily", for instance). Also, this was a song that was written most likely in part with the purpose of sales and profit, so it is unknown if this is entirely how the writer of the song felt, or if they presented a point of view that would sell. Additionally you must consider that with songs come rhyme scheme and keeping a meter, so the choice of words might depend on that more than trying to prove a point in some places. This is, like Source A, valuable as context more than as fact.
4. Using these Sources and further research, evaluate the consumer economy as it developed in Britain between the years 1950 and 1980.
The consumer economy of Britain had greatly increased over these years, as evidenced by the increase of television, literature, and music which can be seen as culturally enriching. This is evident in Source C most of all, with references to long distance calls, and supermarkets with "special offers" and "coupons" as well as "all the programmes" on TV. This sounds like a society that has become more filled with things that customers could purchase, watch, see etc. American music also became popular in the UK, too. The film industry is an example; during the 1950s and 1960s in Britain, more films were made that were directed toward younger audiences, which brought about the increase of young people who went to the movies and purchased films. This is just one example. Additionally it is important to note that there were poorer industrial relations and vocational trading, so the economy was still at risk and the British had relatively low growth during this period overall, hence making the statement that the British had "never had it so good" seem very hollow.
Source: http://webspace.webring.com/people/gj/jlinwood/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#1960.E2.80.931979:_the_Sixties_and_Seventies
a. "a state of prosperity" (source A) - this refers to the fact that the country was experiencing a cultural and economic boom, in particular at this time there was an increase in literature, music, and television in a way that made the culture seem far more modern and innovative.
b. "a mother's little helper" (source B) - this is a tongue-in-cheek reference to a housewife dealing with a demanding husband and bratty children.
2. Compare and contrast the views of Britain's consumer society expressed in Sources A and C.
Source A presents the idea of the state of Britain's consumer society as a positive, and a time where everyone is happy and benefiting. The source states "Most of our people have never had it so good", which implies that the new innovations are something that everyone is happy about (things such as shopping offers and consumer goods). The reference to a state of prosperity furthers this idea. On the other hand, Source C presents the other point of view, that which all of this is excess, hence "I can no longer shop happily" and "Long distance callers make long distance calls and the silence makes me lonely". It sounds as if this point of view is that there is nothing personally gained and that Britain's consumer society is rich in goods and things to buy and do, but that there is less intrinsic value and contrary to Source A, not everyone is happy about it. However, the thing both sources have in common is that they both acknowledge that there has been change.
3. Assess the origin, purpose, value, and limitations of sources A and C as historical documents.
Source A is a speech to a rally of Conservative supporters, made by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in 1957. The purpose of this portion of the speech is to demonstrate that there have been positive changes in Britain and that the people are happy and that everything seems financially sound. The value of this to someone looking at it as a historical document is that it does acknowledge change, and that there was indeed some sort of cultural/economic change that indeed made some people happy. It provides context and gives one an idea of how some people in Britain felt about the changes. The limitation, however, is that this is only one portion of the speech, thus it is unknown if other valuable information was stated before, and also the most important limitation is that the speaker is assessing other people's happiness ("our people have never had it so good"), when that is subjective and depends on how many people you survey and ask. I think as a historical document, this has some value but the limitations make it more of an opinion or one point of view than a fact.
Source C is part of the song "Lost in the Supermarket", by the Clash, from 1979. The purpose was to convey the other side of all of the changes to Britain's consumer society, and the fact that not everyone was necessarily happy about it, as the speaker in the song is not. The value is that this is one other point of view that works contrary to that in Source A, but similarly to Source A, the limitation encountered is that it is someone's opinion and shows their PERSONAL feelings ("I can no longer shop happily", for instance). Also, this was a song that was written most likely in part with the purpose of sales and profit, so it is unknown if this is entirely how the writer of the song felt, or if they presented a point of view that would sell. Additionally you must consider that with songs come rhyme scheme and keeping a meter, so the choice of words might depend on that more than trying to prove a point in some places. This is, like Source A, valuable as context more than as fact.
4. Using these Sources and further research, evaluate the consumer economy as it developed in Britain between the years 1950 and 1980.
The consumer economy of Britain had greatly increased over these years, as evidenced by the increase of television, literature, and music which can be seen as culturally enriching. This is evident in Source C most of all, with references to long distance calls, and supermarkets with "special offers" and "coupons" as well as "all the programmes" on TV. This sounds like a society that has become more filled with things that customers could purchase, watch, see etc. American music also became popular in the UK, too. The film industry is an example; during the 1950s and 1960s in Britain, more films were made that were directed toward younger audiences, which brought about the increase of young people who went to the movies and purchased films. This is just one example. Additionally it is important to note that there were poorer industrial relations and vocational trading, so the economy was still at risk and the British had relatively low growth during this period overall, hence making the statement that the British had "never had it so good" seem very hollow.
Source: http://webspace.webring.com/people/gj/jlinwood/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#1960.E2.80.931979:_the_Sixties_and_Seventies
Monday, March 14, 2011
UK Case Study, Education Questions, Questions 1, 2, 3.
1. Compare and contrast the views of educational change in the period after 1945 presented by these sources.
The views of the educational system differ between these sources. Source A outlines that the educational system promoted creativity moreso than just drilling information into people's heads by memorization, which definitely demonstrates a more "recent" (for lack of a better word) approach to education, since we think of this approach as innovative and recent. It describes the educational system as "relaxed, informal, with an emphasis on creativity rather than barrack-room drilling." Source B outlines that educational methods and standards have improved, but that such education is "disproportionally accessible" to the most advantaged of British society, showing that although the educational system did improve, not everyone had access to it, which makes it seem as if there was not as much of an advantage to these changes as one would think from Source A. Source C outlines academic performance differences between working-class and middle-class students, and lends support to Source B's assertion that the higher of class you were, the more access to education you'd have - Source C states that middle-class children performed better academically than working-class children (who would have had less access to educational opportunities). Assuming both sources B and C are accurate, it seems evident that Source A doesn't mention the fact that the reformed educational system was not evenly accessible to all.
2. Research the structure of the British school system in the period 1900-1945. What elements remained unchanged after 1945?
The British school system underwent several changes in the late 1800s, as well as others in the first half of the 20th century. One of these was the Balfour Act, which replaced school boards with Local Education Authorities that are still in use today. Secondary education was made compulsory up to age 14, as well. The 1944 Act, also known as the Butler Act, established the Tripartite System, It defined the grammar school as the place of education for the academically gifted (with entrance determined by a selection exam. Initially this was the "Scholarship" exam, which was later replaced by a "Grading Test", later replaced by the 11+ examination. Children who did not pass the selection test attended technical schools or secondary modern schools. Elements that remained unchanged after 1945 include the role of Local Education Authorities, in England and Wales, as well as the mandatory nature of school attendance. However other changes have taken place in the British educational system, mostly from the period of 1975-2000, including the Education Reform Act of 1988 which introduced the National Curriculum amongst other reforms. It's also important to note that the educational systems in different parts of the United Kingdom differ, and that what I stated above is mostly true for England and Wales.
3. Using these sources and further research evaluate the educational changes in the period 1945-2000 in terms of the effect on the social structure of Britain.
The educational system, particularly the Tripartite System, came under criticism following 1945, with many considering it elitist. The Work Experience Act of 1973 led to the introduction of middle schools, of which there are now fewer than 400 middle schools across England and Wales, which is not a lot if you think about it. The Education (Work Experience) Act increased the legal leaving age of school from 15 to 16, and the goal of this was to try to lower the number of students who left school, and employment in heavy industry and artisan trades has declined since the 1970s, showing a definite correlation between education and professions. Since heavy industry and artisan trades are often associated with working-class, it would seem that the social structure of Britain was altered in that social mobility has become increasingly possible since. Since 1997, further emphasis has been put on tailoring education to each child's ability. Other changes have been made, but it seems to me that since 93.7% of British are enrolled in secondary education and 26% obtain tertiary education, and I highly doubt all of these individuals are upper class, it becomes evident that education has become more accessible to the general population and that it will continue to do so in the future. Tertiary education refers primarily to colleges, universities, and technical institutions, and if 26% are attending them, you have to figure that they have to come from a variety of financial backgrounds, given that 26% of the British cannot reasonably be upper class/wealthy/rich but probably a mixture of upper, middle, and working class. The limitation of this assertion is that I can't find specific statistics that break down that 26% any further, but common sense would suggest they are not solely upper class.
Sources: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/16/contents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_England
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/edu-education
The views of the educational system differ between these sources. Source A outlines that the educational system promoted creativity moreso than just drilling information into people's heads by memorization, which definitely demonstrates a more "recent" (for lack of a better word) approach to education, since we think of this approach as innovative and recent. It describes the educational system as "relaxed, informal, with an emphasis on creativity rather than barrack-room drilling." Source B outlines that educational methods and standards have improved, but that such education is "disproportionally accessible" to the most advantaged of British society, showing that although the educational system did improve, not everyone had access to it, which makes it seem as if there was not as much of an advantage to these changes as one would think from Source A. Source C outlines academic performance differences between working-class and middle-class students, and lends support to Source B's assertion that the higher of class you were, the more access to education you'd have - Source C states that middle-class children performed better academically than working-class children (who would have had less access to educational opportunities). Assuming both sources B and C are accurate, it seems evident that Source A doesn't mention the fact that the reformed educational system was not evenly accessible to all.
2. Research the structure of the British school system in the period 1900-1945. What elements remained unchanged after 1945?
The British school system underwent several changes in the late 1800s, as well as others in the first half of the 20th century. One of these was the Balfour Act, which replaced school boards with Local Education Authorities that are still in use today. Secondary education was made compulsory up to age 14, as well. The 1944 Act, also known as the Butler Act, established the Tripartite System, It defined the grammar school as the place of education for the academically gifted (with entrance determined by a selection exam. Initially this was the "Scholarship" exam, which was later replaced by a "Grading Test", later replaced by the 11+ examination. Children who did not pass the selection test attended technical schools or secondary modern schools. Elements that remained unchanged after 1945 include the role of Local Education Authorities, in England and Wales, as well as the mandatory nature of school attendance. However other changes have taken place in the British educational system, mostly from the period of 1975-2000, including the Education Reform Act of 1988 which introduced the National Curriculum amongst other reforms. It's also important to note that the educational systems in different parts of the United Kingdom differ, and that what I stated above is mostly true for England and Wales.
3. Using these sources and further research evaluate the educational changes in the period 1945-2000 in terms of the effect on the social structure of Britain.
The educational system, particularly the Tripartite System, came under criticism following 1945, with many considering it elitist. The Work Experience Act of 1973 led to the introduction of middle schools, of which there are now fewer than 400 middle schools across England and Wales, which is not a lot if you think about it. The Education (Work Experience) Act increased the legal leaving age of school from 15 to 16, and the goal of this was to try to lower the number of students who left school, and employment in heavy industry and artisan trades has declined since the 1970s, showing a definite correlation between education and professions. Since heavy industry and artisan trades are often associated with working-class, it would seem that the social structure of Britain was altered in that social mobility has become increasingly possible since. Since 1997, further emphasis has been put on tailoring education to each child's ability. Other changes have been made, but it seems to me that since 93.7% of British are enrolled in secondary education and 26% obtain tertiary education, and I highly doubt all of these individuals are upper class, it becomes evident that education has become more accessible to the general population and that it will continue to do so in the future. Tertiary education refers primarily to colleges, universities, and technical institutions, and if 26% are attending them, you have to figure that they have to come from a variety of financial backgrounds, given that 26% of the British cannot reasonably be upper class/wealthy/rich but probably a mixture of upper, middle, and working class. The limitation of this assertion is that I can't find specific statistics that break down that 26% any further, but common sense would suggest they are not solely upper class.
Sources: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/16/contents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_England
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/edu-education
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Gender Inequality in Britain, Questions 1, 2, 3. March 2, 2011.
1. How has the role of women in British politics changed since 1945?
The role of women in British politics has changed significantly in the last 70 years. Around that time, less than 1/5 of British women had jobs, so it would figure that even LESS would be involved in politics, yet today, 22% of the MPs of the House of Commons and 20% of the members of the House of Lords are women, when around 100 years ago, there were none. Granted, this isn't saying that nearly 1/4 of British women are invovled in politics since that's not true, but around 1/4 or 1/5 of British politicians today appear to be women. So while the vast majority of people involved in British politics are men, women are starting to play a more important role, unlike 50-100 years ago when a woman's place in society was often disregarded simply because she was a woman.
2. To what extent did the election of Margaret Thatcher as the first woman prime minister affect the role of women in British society?
Margaret Thatcher's election as the first female prime minister of Britain affected the role of women in British society because she became a role model for British women with political aspirations, and she, being the first female prime minister, began to give women hope in the fact that it was possible to achieve what she did despite the way women were often viewed as less capable than men, and she also made significant changes to Britain in general that showed the general public that a woman was capable of political change. A quote from a British newspaper said "She changed the sense of embarrassment that Britons felt toward the concepts of productivity and profit. She changed British reliance of manufacturing industry just in time, inaugurating the services and information technology industry revolutions." It gave women hope to know that a woman could have such profound influence.
3. How has the evolution of religion in post war Britain affected reproductive rights?
In post-war Britain, several changes were made that are considered 'liberal' changes, for instance the legality of abortion in 1967. It is believed that this, along with other changes such as the effort to obtain gender equality as well as the fact that homosexuality was no longer illegal, coincides with the fact that fewer people went to church. By the 1990s, only 1 in 7 people responded to a survey that they do go to church, and formal professions of faith have become less important amongst those who identified themselves as believers, showing that it is possible that these liberal changes could have also been due to a lesser influence of a collective body of believers, such as a church, on people's minds, since a lot of people identified themselves as believers who don't go to church, or non-believers altogether. The Abortion Act in 1967 made abortion legal, and was at the time considered one of the most liberal abortion laws in Europe, and it allowed for abortion under the following circumstances; to save the woman's life, to prevent grave damage to the woman's physical or mental health, under 28 weeks to prevent damage to the mother, under 28 weeks to prevent damage to the woman's existing children, and if the child was likely to be severely mentally or physically handicapped. Before 1967, legal abortion in Britain was unheard of.
The role of women in British politics has changed significantly in the last 70 years. Around that time, less than 1/5 of British women had jobs, so it would figure that even LESS would be involved in politics, yet today, 22% of the MPs of the House of Commons and 20% of the members of the House of Lords are women, when around 100 years ago, there were none. Granted, this isn't saying that nearly 1/4 of British women are invovled in politics since that's not true, but around 1/4 or 1/5 of British politicians today appear to be women. So while the vast majority of people involved in British politics are men, women are starting to play a more important role, unlike 50-100 years ago when a woman's place in society was often disregarded simply because she was a woman.
2. To what extent did the election of Margaret Thatcher as the first woman prime minister affect the role of women in British society?
Margaret Thatcher's election as the first female prime minister of Britain affected the role of women in British society because she became a role model for British women with political aspirations, and she, being the first female prime minister, began to give women hope in the fact that it was possible to achieve what she did despite the way women were often viewed as less capable than men, and she also made significant changes to Britain in general that showed the general public that a woman was capable of political change. A quote from a British newspaper said "She changed the sense of embarrassment that Britons felt toward the concepts of productivity and profit. She changed British reliance of manufacturing industry just in time, inaugurating the services and information technology industry revolutions." It gave women hope to know that a woman could have such profound influence.
3. How has the evolution of religion in post war Britain affected reproductive rights?
In post-war Britain, several changes were made that are considered 'liberal' changes, for instance the legality of abortion in 1967. It is believed that this, along with other changes such as the effort to obtain gender equality as well as the fact that homosexuality was no longer illegal, coincides with the fact that fewer people went to church. By the 1990s, only 1 in 7 people responded to a survey that they do go to church, and formal professions of faith have become less important amongst those who identified themselves as believers, showing that it is possible that these liberal changes could have also been due to a lesser influence of a collective body of believers, such as a church, on people's minds, since a lot of people identified themselves as believers who don't go to church, or non-believers altogether. The Abortion Act in 1967 made abortion legal, and was at the time considered one of the most liberal abortion laws in Europe, and it allowed for abortion under the following circumstances; to save the woman's life, to prevent grave damage to the woman's physical or mental health, under 28 weeks to prevent damage to the mother, under 28 weeks to prevent damage to the woman's existing children, and if the child was likely to be severely mentally or physically handicapped. Before 1967, legal abortion in Britain was unheard of.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Class in British Society Questions, February 28, 2011
1. Compare the quality of life of the working class and the middle class between 1945 and 2000.
The working class in 1945 was struggling to create a new world in Britain and escape the issues of World War II, and starting around that point and within the next few years, working class living standards became undeniably improved by full employment and comprehensive welfare provision. However, educational opportunities were few and far between for the most part, as even two decades later, in the 1960s, only 9% of the population was enrolled in universities and only 3% OF that 9% was working class. So while job opportunities and welfare significantly improved the quality of life of the working class, there was still room for improvement with regards to education. As for the quality of life of the working class as of 2000, although British families earn significantly more on average than the average European family, due to the fact that "According to the report the British pay "the highest prices for diesel, 18% above the average, and the second-highest price for unleaded petrol, 6% more than average. Public spending on health and education is below-average. British workers have fewer holidays than average and retire later (they have the third-highest retirement age in Europe), while life expectancy is the third-lowest at 78.9 years, compared to 80.9 in France or 80.7 in Sweden. ", it can be inferred that for the working class, due to these comparatively high prices, the quality of life is more difficult than it would have been in past years, although this is still up for debate since nowadays, educational opportunities are much more significantly attainable today. Middle class quality of life follows a similar pattern, however life is easier for them than for the working class, considering that the middle class consists of professionals and independent business people, as well as white collar and clerical workers, so they make more money.
Sources:
http://www.marxist.com/british-quality-of-life-among-worst-in-europe.htm
GENDER AND WORKING CLASS IDENTITY IN BRITAIN DURING THE 1950sJournal article by Stephen Brooke; Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, 2001.
2. Compare and contrast avenues for social mobility in 1945 and 2000.
One avenue for social mobility is education, and in 1945 it would be assumed that approximately 9% of British people were in college if not less, given that over time this rate increases and by 1965 it was approximately that 9%, so in 1945 it must have been less, and part of this could have been that it was difficult to send your children to college if you didn't have the financial means to support them through the process. However, some sources today state that in 2000, approximately 20% of UK citizens hold a degree, which is quite a bit greater than 9%. Given that education opens doors and nowadays due to aspects such as financial aid and the ability to take student loans, students from poorer backgrounds can afford education, open themselves up to new opportunities and thus social mobility can become possible.
There are some things, on the other hand, that PREVENT social mobility, and these are said to be gender and race. It's not fair, but when examining status mobility, it is said that women and minorities have a harder time seeking promotions, and that women and minorities hold jobs with less rank, authority, opportunity for advancement, and pay than men and whites. This would have been more of a deterrent in the past, given that there is now attempt for equal opportunity, which attempts to even out these situations and therefore, race and gender are interfering far less with social mobility.
The working class in 1945 was struggling to create a new world in Britain and escape the issues of World War II, and starting around that point and within the next few years, working class living standards became undeniably improved by full employment and comprehensive welfare provision. However, educational opportunities were few and far between for the most part, as even two decades later, in the 1960s, only 9% of the population was enrolled in universities and only 3% OF that 9% was working class. So while job opportunities and welfare significantly improved the quality of life of the working class, there was still room for improvement with regards to education. As for the quality of life of the working class as of 2000, although British families earn significantly more on average than the average European family, due to the fact that "According to the report the British pay "the highest prices for diesel, 18% above the average, and the second-highest price for unleaded petrol, 6% more than average. Public spending on health and education is below-average. British workers have fewer holidays than average and retire later (they have the third-highest retirement age in Europe), while life expectancy is the third-lowest at 78.9 years, compared to 80.9 in France or 80.7 in Sweden. ", it can be inferred that for the working class, due to these comparatively high prices, the quality of life is more difficult than it would have been in past years, although this is still up for debate since nowadays, educational opportunities are much more significantly attainable today. Middle class quality of life follows a similar pattern, however life is easier for them than for the working class, considering that the middle class consists of professionals and independent business people, as well as white collar and clerical workers, so they make more money.
Sources:
http://www.marxist.com/british-quality-of-life-among-worst-in-europe.htm
GENDER AND WORKING CLASS IDENTITY IN BRITAIN DURING THE 1950sJournal article by Stephen Brooke; Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, 2001.
2. Compare and contrast avenues for social mobility in 1945 and 2000.
One avenue for social mobility is education, and in 1945 it would be assumed that approximately 9% of British people were in college if not less, given that over time this rate increases and by 1965 it was approximately that 9%, so in 1945 it must have been less, and part of this could have been that it was difficult to send your children to college if you didn't have the financial means to support them through the process. However, some sources today state that in 2000, approximately 20% of UK citizens hold a degree, which is quite a bit greater than 9%. Given that education opens doors and nowadays due to aspects such as financial aid and the ability to take student loans, students from poorer backgrounds can afford education, open themselves up to new opportunities and thus social mobility can become possible.
There are some things, on the other hand, that PREVENT social mobility, and these are said to be gender and race. It's not fair, but when examining status mobility, it is said that women and minorities have a harder time seeking promotions, and that women and minorities hold jobs with less rank, authority, opportunity for advancement, and pay than men and whites. This would have been more of a deterrent in the past, given that there is now attempt for equal opportunity, which attempts to even out these situations and therefore, race and gender are interfering far less with social mobility.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Economist Article. February 8, 2010.
Textbooks often portray "income inequality" as one of the major concerns facing modern economies. Given its mention in the Oxford History reading, and the Economist article (attached), to what extent to you believe income inequality is one of the three biggest problems facing Europe in the era we are studying? Please respond on your blog with at least a paragraph.
I believe that "income inequality" was one of the problems facing Europe in the area that we are studying, but I do not believe that it was one of the top three problems. While there was economic polarization taking place (a widening gap between the rich and the poor), there were other more influential reasons why Western Europe's economy began to take a turn for the worse. One is that there was increased competition from the Far East for exports, so Western Europe's share of exports was proportionally less than it previously had been, therefore less money was coming into Western Europe due to exports. "Oil shocks" (substantial increases in oil prices) also were another significant cause, given that since the prices of oil were dramatically increasing and Western Europe was not making as much money as a whole, they did not have the money to import the amount of oil they had previously been importing, thus global trade took a downward turn as well, as Western Europe previously imported more significantly. And finally, stagflation (economic stagnation coupled with inflation) was a large problem as well. I believe all three of these issues were far more significant in changing the economic climate in Europe during the 1970s, and the uneven distribution of wealth and the eventual economic polarization was a result of these other causes, rather than vice versa. Thus it doesn't make the list of the top 3 causes for economic problems, although it was a problem of its own.
I believe that "income inequality" was one of the problems facing Europe in the area that we are studying, but I do not believe that it was one of the top three problems. While there was economic polarization taking place (a widening gap between the rich and the poor), there were other more influential reasons why Western Europe's economy began to take a turn for the worse. One is that there was increased competition from the Far East for exports, so Western Europe's share of exports was proportionally less than it previously had been, therefore less money was coming into Western Europe due to exports. "Oil shocks" (substantial increases in oil prices) also were another significant cause, given that since the prices of oil were dramatically increasing and Western Europe was not making as much money as a whole, they did not have the money to import the amount of oil they had previously been importing, thus global trade took a downward turn as well, as Western Europe previously imported more significantly. And finally, stagflation (economic stagnation coupled with inflation) was a large problem as well. I believe all three of these issues were far more significant in changing the economic climate in Europe during the 1970s, and the uneven distribution of wealth and the eventual economic polarization was a result of these other causes, rather than vice versa. Thus it doesn't make the list of the top 3 causes for economic problems, although it was a problem of its own.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Current events in Egypt - what should Obama do?
In my opinion, the United States and Obama should not get involved in what is going on in Egypt right now, as it could be potentially disastrous regardless of what we could do. The United States has supported Mubarak because he has maintained peaceful policies toward Israel, so if the United States were to be on the side of those protesting, it might (in an indirect manner) more quickly put another leader in charge that is more favorable with the Egyptians that might not actually maintain peaceful policies with Israel, and since Egypt is the largest and most populous Arab country, if any Arab could destroy Israel single-handed it would probably be Egypt. On the other hand, if the United States decides to support Mubarak, it will alienate the majority of the Egyptian people and when Mubarak is finally not in power, it is likely that the next Egyptian leader would not want to cooperate with us and it could provoke future conflicts, be it a lack of economic cooperation or even war. It is just safer for the United States to stay out of the conflicts in Egypt right now, since we already are at war and don't need to make any more enemies. I think that it is not the business of the United States to interfere with peaceful protests and if the protests intensify, it is not our responsibility to stop it.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Adenauer Questions, 1/31/11
1. Adenauer's greatest achievements;
-he reestablished German democracy following the Nazis, (Verdict A)
-he oversaw the beginning of an economic miracle, secured a place for West Germany in the international community, brought economic prosperity, material wealth, political stability, and relative security. (Verdict B)
-brought Germany out of the abyss Hitler caused, tied West Germany into Western Europe and brought them closer (Verdict C)
2. Criticisms of Adenauer are not justified because although some said that he completely neglected the concerns of East Germany, it seems to me that he just did not want to do anything risky such as reunite the country so long as the Soviet Union was so closely tied in with East Germany, as there was no predicting what might have happened otherwise. However, it is true that he did not keep his promise of focusing on German reunification.
-he reestablished German democracy following the Nazis, (Verdict A)
-he oversaw the beginning of an economic miracle, secured a place for West Germany in the international community, brought economic prosperity, material wealth, political stability, and relative security. (Verdict B)
-brought Germany out of the abyss Hitler caused, tied West Germany into Western Europe and brought them closer (Verdict C)
2. Criticisms of Adenauer are not justified because although some said that he completely neglected the concerns of East Germany, it seems to me that he just did not want to do anything risky such as reunite the country so long as the Soviet Union was so closely tied in with East Germany, as there was no predicting what might have happened otherwise. However, it is true that he did not keep his promise of focusing on German reunification.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
IRL - European Union. 1/25/10.
URL; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html
The European Union today, according to the CIA fact book, has done a lot in Europe, including the abolishment of trade barriers (which is consistent with the idea of European economic cooperation that began in the 1950s and 1960s), has adopted a common currency (the Euro), and is striving toward convergence of living standards. The only limitation to this is that due to differences in average income in various countries as well as the standard of living which varies, it will be difficult to standardize the quality of living and work toward one common European economy.
This is significant to what we have learned in class because it demonstrates that the countries of Europe are cooperating in order to level out their standards of living and make opportunities greater for all European countries who are part of the European Union. This is definitely a continuation of the past attempts to unite Europe economically and move past the divisions due to wars which created rivalries and significant economic gaps from one country to another. Also, statistics demonstrate that this is working, as the unemployment rate of the EU is only 9% compared to the rest of the world which is slightly higher, and that the EU is very technologically advanced compared to most of the world and home to a number of industries (metal, coal, cement, electronics and communication, etc.).
What I find most significant is that the European Union covers a wide range of European regions that were once previously separated culturally and economically, for instance all of Western Europe minus Switzerland, but also Eastern European countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, etc . are also members, and they were on the other side of the "Iron Curtain", but now seem to be showing interest in cooperating with the rest of Europe, which shows definite progress. There are currently 27 member states of the European Union, which is more than half of all Europe.
The European Union today, according to the CIA fact book, has done a lot in Europe, including the abolishment of trade barriers (which is consistent with the idea of European economic cooperation that began in the 1950s and 1960s), has adopted a common currency (the Euro), and is striving toward convergence of living standards. The only limitation to this is that due to differences in average income in various countries as well as the standard of living which varies, it will be difficult to standardize the quality of living and work toward one common European economy.
This is significant to what we have learned in class because it demonstrates that the countries of Europe are cooperating in order to level out their standards of living and make opportunities greater for all European countries who are part of the European Union. This is definitely a continuation of the past attempts to unite Europe economically and move past the divisions due to wars which created rivalries and significant economic gaps from one country to another. Also, statistics demonstrate that this is working, as the unemployment rate of the EU is only 9% compared to the rest of the world which is slightly higher, and that the EU is very technologically advanced compared to most of the world and home to a number of industries (metal, coal, cement, electronics and communication, etc.).
What I find most significant is that the European Union covers a wide range of European regions that were once previously separated culturally and economically, for instance all of Western Europe minus Switzerland, but also Eastern European countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, etc . are also members, and they were on the other side of the "Iron Curtain", but now seem to be showing interest in cooperating with the rest of Europe, which shows definite progress. There are currently 27 member states of the European Union, which is more than half of all Europe.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Spain Chapter 5.5 Questions, January 6, 2011
1. Successes Spain experienced in international relations in the 1950s included the $62 million dollar loan from the US as part of the European Co-Operation Adminstration, the 1952 decision to allow Spain membership of UNESCO, and in 1955 full membership of the United Nations.
2. Economic troubles Spain faced included the per capita meat consumption that was in 1950 only half of what it was in 1926, bread consumption being only half of what it was in 1936, and shortages and corruption that forced people to buy goods at black market prices double those in the shops.
3. A technocrat is a technical expert put in a position of power or control. Opus Dei was an organization within the Catholic Church that believed that economic development lead to the spread of liberal ideas and therefore, anti-Catholic thought.
4. Desarrollo means Spanish Miracle. The Stabilization Plan of 1957 was made up of cutting public spending, wages were frozen, credit restricted, and the peseta (the Spanish currency) was devalued. The goal of this was to tackle inflation and the balance of payments deficit and in the longer term to break with the Falangist policy of autarky, which had restricted the possibility of economic growth.
5. The Spanish economy was boosted in the 1960s because foreign investment was attracted by the low cost of labour and the lack of civil rights the authoritarian regime guaranteed, and Northern Europe's expanding middle class started to take holidays on the rapidly developing Spanish costas. Spanish people working in the service sector abroad sent home one third of their earnings to family left behind, and by 1973 there were 750,000 Spanish working in Germany and France.
6. Three examples of the economic improvement experienced by the Spaniards during the 1960s include the fact that they ceased to be on the list of UN-designated "Developing Nations", and when the Desarrollo ended with the world oil crisis of 1973, Spain was the world's ninth biggest industrial power. Additionally, average incomes nearly tripled during the 1960s.
7. Types of media that came to dominate Spanish culture during the 1960s were television, and Television Espanola (TVE) was established as a state monopoly in 1956. By 1970, 90% of the Spanish owned a television. Also, the cinema was another media, as it had more seats per capita than in any other European country. Football also offered a similar means of escape and was fully exploited by the nation.
8. Three ways that economic growth in Spain undermined the social structure that helped create Franco's regime were the fact that Falangists had glorified the peasant farmer and traditional class structure of southern Spain, but the urbanization of the Desarrollo did much to destroy this. Also Falangist propaganda denigrated the moral turpitude of the liberal democracies but Spain's economic revival depended on the remittances of Spaniards living in these democracies. Also, the Spanish brought home with them liberal ideas when they returned.
9. The "anti-democratic" legacy of the Franco regime is the fact that the state and laws were fundamentally unchanged from the system established at the end of the civil war, and in 1975 when Franco died, Spain stood alone in Western Europe as the only remaining authoritarian regime that owed its origins to pre-war fascism. Also, Spain was still overwhelmingly focused on the Cortes representing not political parties but interest groups drawn from the monarchists, army, church, and Falange.
10. The "institutionalized discrimination against married women" in Spain in the 1970s because women were in Franco's Spain considered second class citizens, the basis of the relationship between men and women was the idea of permiso marital (permission of marriage), where without the husband's permission, a wife could not take job, open a bank account or even travel any significant distance. Married women didn't have rights to property and had to pass everything to their husbands, and although adultery was a crime punishable 6 years in prison, it was only a crime for men if the affair became public knowledge, and there was no divorce and contraception was illegal. Basically, women had no choices.
11. Nationalist minority groups in Spain during the 1960s and 1970s such as the Catalans and Basques protested the suppression of regionalism. In Catalonia the protests were expressed peacefully through cultural means but in the Basque country, the protest became associated with the terrorist group ETA which became caught up in a spiral of retaliatory violence which continues today.
2. Economic troubles Spain faced included the per capita meat consumption that was in 1950 only half of what it was in 1926, bread consumption being only half of what it was in 1936, and shortages and corruption that forced people to buy goods at black market prices double those in the shops.
3. A technocrat is a technical expert put in a position of power or control. Opus Dei was an organization within the Catholic Church that believed that economic development lead to the spread of liberal ideas and therefore, anti-Catholic thought.
4. Desarrollo means Spanish Miracle. The Stabilization Plan of 1957 was made up of cutting public spending, wages were frozen, credit restricted, and the peseta (the Spanish currency) was devalued. The goal of this was to tackle inflation and the balance of payments deficit and in the longer term to break with the Falangist policy of autarky, which had restricted the possibility of economic growth.
5. The Spanish economy was boosted in the 1960s because foreign investment was attracted by the low cost of labour and the lack of civil rights the authoritarian regime guaranteed, and Northern Europe's expanding middle class started to take holidays on the rapidly developing Spanish costas. Spanish people working in the service sector abroad sent home one third of their earnings to family left behind, and by 1973 there were 750,000 Spanish working in Germany and France.
6. Three examples of the economic improvement experienced by the Spaniards during the 1960s include the fact that they ceased to be on the list of UN-designated "Developing Nations", and when the Desarrollo ended with the world oil crisis of 1973, Spain was the world's ninth biggest industrial power. Additionally, average incomes nearly tripled during the 1960s.
7. Types of media that came to dominate Spanish culture during the 1960s were television, and Television Espanola (TVE) was established as a state monopoly in 1956. By 1970, 90% of the Spanish owned a television. Also, the cinema was another media, as it had more seats per capita than in any other European country. Football also offered a similar means of escape and was fully exploited by the nation.
8. Three ways that economic growth in Spain undermined the social structure that helped create Franco's regime were the fact that Falangists had glorified the peasant farmer and traditional class structure of southern Spain, but the urbanization of the Desarrollo did much to destroy this. Also Falangist propaganda denigrated the moral turpitude of the liberal democracies but Spain's economic revival depended on the remittances of Spaniards living in these democracies. Also, the Spanish brought home with them liberal ideas when they returned.
9. The "anti-democratic" legacy of the Franco regime is the fact that the state and laws were fundamentally unchanged from the system established at the end of the civil war, and in 1975 when Franco died, Spain stood alone in Western Europe as the only remaining authoritarian regime that owed its origins to pre-war fascism. Also, Spain was still overwhelmingly focused on the Cortes representing not political parties but interest groups drawn from the monarchists, army, church, and Falange.
10. The "institutionalized discrimination against married women" in Spain in the 1970s because women were in Franco's Spain considered second class citizens, the basis of the relationship between men and women was the idea of permiso marital (permission of marriage), where without the husband's permission, a wife could not take job, open a bank account or even travel any significant distance. Married women didn't have rights to property and had to pass everything to their husbands, and although adultery was a crime punishable 6 years in prison, it was only a crime for men if the affair became public knowledge, and there was no divorce and contraception was illegal. Basically, women had no choices.
11. Nationalist minority groups in Spain during the 1960s and 1970s such as the Catalans and Basques protested the suppression of regionalism. In Catalonia the protests were expressed peacefully through cultural means but in the Basque country, the protest became associated with the terrorist group ETA which became caught up in a spiral of retaliatory violence which continues today.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Franco questions, January 4, 2010
1. Compare and contrast the views of Paul Preston and Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses on Franco. To what extent do they disagree with one another?
To a significant extent they disagree with each other, because the underlying thought behind what they have stated is contrasting - de Meneses believes that Franco was not a fascist because fascists want to provoke a change in society, but he says that Franco tried to preserve Spain from change, which is contrary to what fascism is - while on the other hand, Preston states that the only way it can be justified to state that Franco was not a fascist is if fascism is made synonymous with Nazism, since Mussolini's Italy is in many ways comparable to Spain under Franco.
2. Franco ruled Spain for nearly 40 years. Why does this make it more difficult to conclude whether he was a fascist or not?
Due to the different circumstances that Franco would have had to face and the influence of several leaders of other countries and the sharing of ideas between them (Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.) and the fact that Spain under Franco, according to Source G on this paper, had "Fascist trimmings in the early years" but later on was rather modified over time and never became a totalitarian state, it is difficult to determine if Franco is fascist or not since the nature of his regime might have shifted focus for one reason or another.
3. In 1944 the English writer George Orwell wrote that the word fascism was "entirely meaningless". Does the word have any meaning or use in today's world?
From my experience I have only heard it used in reference to leaders who have existed in the past, mainly Hitler and Mussolini, but in today's world it is taught that fascism is the 'extreme right' on the political spectrum, thus it seems that someone with extreme right-wing views, if going all the way to the extreme with them, could be considered a fascist if they put these views into practice and ruled their country similarly to how established fascist leaders (Hitler, Mussolini, etc.) did. I have not heard any modern leaders referred to as fascist although this might be due to my limited experience.
4. List the characteristics of a fascist state. How does Franco's rule conform to these definitions?
- Right-wing views
- Brutality and a desire for war
- One political party exists
- Totalitarian
- Desire to create change in the society
Franco's rule conforms to the definitions of right-wing, brutal/war desiring, but not totalitarian or the existence of only one political party (since the Falangists only existed for a period of time before Franco diminished their importance and eventually they ceased to exist or be significant). The main difference is that Franco was said to have tried to preserve Spain from change, which is seen as un-fascist, as opposed to trying to create radical change the way someone like Hitler and Mussolini did.
To a significant extent they disagree with each other, because the underlying thought behind what they have stated is contrasting - de Meneses believes that Franco was not a fascist because fascists want to provoke a change in society, but he says that Franco tried to preserve Spain from change, which is contrary to what fascism is - while on the other hand, Preston states that the only way it can be justified to state that Franco was not a fascist is if fascism is made synonymous with Nazism, since Mussolini's Italy is in many ways comparable to Spain under Franco.
2. Franco ruled Spain for nearly 40 years. Why does this make it more difficult to conclude whether he was a fascist or not?
Due to the different circumstances that Franco would have had to face and the influence of several leaders of other countries and the sharing of ideas between them (Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.) and the fact that Spain under Franco, according to Source G on this paper, had "Fascist trimmings in the early years" but later on was rather modified over time and never became a totalitarian state, it is difficult to determine if Franco is fascist or not since the nature of his regime might have shifted focus for one reason or another.
3. In 1944 the English writer George Orwell wrote that the word fascism was "entirely meaningless". Does the word have any meaning or use in today's world?
From my experience I have only heard it used in reference to leaders who have existed in the past, mainly Hitler and Mussolini, but in today's world it is taught that fascism is the 'extreme right' on the political spectrum, thus it seems that someone with extreme right-wing views, if going all the way to the extreme with them, could be considered a fascist if they put these views into practice and ruled their country similarly to how established fascist leaders (Hitler, Mussolini, etc.) did. I have not heard any modern leaders referred to as fascist although this might be due to my limited experience.
4. List the characteristics of a fascist state. How does Franco's rule conform to these definitions?
- Right-wing views
- Brutality and a desire for war
- One political party exists
- Totalitarian
- Desire to create change in the society
Franco's rule conforms to the definitions of right-wing, brutal/war desiring, but not totalitarian or the existence of only one political party (since the Falangists only existed for a period of time before Franco diminished their importance and eventually they ceased to exist or be significant). The main difference is that Franco was said to have tried to preserve Spain from change, which is seen as un-fascist, as opposed to trying to create radical change the way someone like Hitler and Mussolini did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)