Blog # 7

Chapter 21 is full of tons of information so I am going to do my best to analyze the different aspects of it.

                Something interesting that I found in this chapter is that it discusses both World Wars, but I will mostly be focusing my attention to World War 2 and things that occurred during that time frame.  The first thing I found interesting is that World War 2 actually began in Asia with conflict arising between Japan and China.  But in American history this is not how they teach young impressionable minds.  The American version of World War 2 puts that starting point of this World War with the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.  Now while one could easily argue that conflict had been going on between Japan and China for Centuries so in the minds of historians this isn’t something new, why do Americans find it so necessary to say that they were the ones to officially declare War after Pearl Harbor?  And can you really call that a true declaration of war when Roosevelt was the one declaring war when constitutionally the only person/people with the authority to formally declare war in the United States is Congress.  But I will move on from this little debate onto other things I found interesting in this chapter. 

                Strayer spends a good amount of time talking about how other countries treated minorities and different groups of people terribly during times of war, but he never once mentions what happened in the United States following Pearl Harbor.  Strayer talks about the Holocaust and internment camps and how people of lesser race were put into camps, killed, or deported, but he never mentions something similar happening stateside.  In the United States in the state of pure shock and horror that followed immediately after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, people of Japanese descent who were thought to still have direct ties to Japan were locked up in our own personal version of Internment Camps and forced to live in deplorable conditions while their fate was left up to the government.  While we didn’t complete a genocidal killing of these Japanese people we did strip them of their humanity and force them into conditions equal to that of what the Jews experienced.  But Strayer never mentions this at all and I am not quite sure why he completely left this out.  My guess would be that he didn’t want to disrupt the theme he was building of the United States being an Ultimate Global Force that essentially could do no wrong at this point.  He even completely brushed over the horrific long lasting effects of the Atomic Bombs we released in Japan and how we killed thousands of innocent people.  He merely just focused on the fact that it was the clear ending to the War leaving the United States on top as the clear victor.

                I definitely feel a close connection to this chapter as my Grandfather was a part of this War.  He was there and arrived with the troops on D Day in France, and even saw the atrocities of the Holocaust first hand.  In this chapter they talk about the key difference between World War 1 and 2 being that the first was “trench warfare” while the second was all about quick, efficient, and massive killings.  They used bigger weapons, fighter planes, nuclear weapons, and larger scale attacks.  Knowing all this I still can’t believe that my Grandfather not only survived this but survived the entire war without an injury. 

Blog # 6

The Industrial Revolution was a huge development and growth for industry and for Great Britain, but the machines that were created during this time were not the only lasting change that still exists today.  When the Industrial Revolution was deep in its expansion greater divides began to develop between the different classes of people that were living in England during this time period. 

While class levels have existed for Centuries in England and in many civilizations, the Industrial Revolution led to a much greater divide among the people of this country.  The Upper and Middle Classes were benefiting greatly from the wealth that was coming from the Industrial Revolution.  These were the people that owned the mines and factories, and also included bankers and merchants.  Both the group of people that were hiring the labor, and the people who were hired by the Monarch to come up with revolutionary ideas to help increase revenue were the people benefiting most from this surge in Industrialization.

The Labor Class was the group of people who were hired to work in the mines, factories, ports, and farms.  While these people did have steady work they were the ones who were “Suffering the most and benefiting the least” (Strayer, 537).  Because of the Industrial Revolution there was a greater demand for labor which led to a huge increase in people living in these urban centers, which was contributing to overcrowding, epidemics, and a limited supply of clean water.  It was during this time that the difference in overall living started to really increase making for few wealthy and many poor people who were not getting the help they deserved or needed. 

This is something that we still see today in the United States.  Even though the government has tried to reduce the extremes that exist between class levels it has reached a point of no return.  The rich continue to get rich, the middle class are trying their best to hang on to their comfortable lives, and the poor are just continuing to struggle making homelessness and epidemic in the United States.  Because they were unable and no longer focusing on trying to reduce the disparity among the people living during the Industrial Revolution has many civilizations had done so many times before, there is no feasible way that we will be able to fix this issue in modern times.

So while the Industrial Revolution had many innovative creations that have helped pave the way for all the technological advances we see today, I am not sure that they are worth the cost that many people pay today who fall on the lowest end of our still dominating class systems.

Blog # 5

            When people talk about slaves the immediately think about the United States and its history with the African Slave Trade.  Chapter 15 starts off with a woman talking about “I have come full circle back to my destiny: from Africa to America and back to Africa” (Strayer, 433).  This is a common theme when you ask just about anyone about slavery they immediately link it to the United States.  But sadly this is only a small portion of what actually happened during the peak years of the Slave Trade. 

People (and by people I mean the ancestors of African Slaves) want to put a big target on the US as the leading contributor for slavery just because even today our race relations have a long way to go before we see complete tolerance and forgiveness.  When reading this chapter I found out that the United States acquired the least amount of slaves during the 18^th Century.  It was actually the Caribbean and Brazil that really contributed to the mass use of slaves from Africa.  But no one ever talks about slavery in these two countries.  Why is that?

Maybe people don’t talk about these two other countries as leaders in the Slave Trade and key contributors to the atrocities that happened to this group of people because they had better initial race relations with their incoming workers.  Even though their slaves had to endure much harsher working conditions, so much so that their life span was only an average of 7 years once they were acquired.  Maybe a key difference is because at times interracial marriage was not forbidden between slaves and the Spanish and Portuguese people that were occupying these countries at the time.  While they still used them as laborers they still in some ways viewed them as human and that is really a key element in why people can so easily forget and forgive the number of slaves that actually were brought to these lands.

In the United States this was not the case.  Even though the number of slaves was significantly less than that of the Caribbean and Brazil, the early settlers and plantations owners did not view the slaves as human.  While they may have had it much easier in terms of labor, and living conditions, they were traded and treated as disposable.  Interracial marriage was not allowed, and while relationships occurred between slave and owner it was more on the basis of rape, not of mutual adoration and respect.  Maybe this is why people remember the American Slave Trade so vividly today and not the other countries that were as guilty in these crimes against humanity.

 The Caribbean and Brazil really had it right because they don’t have the residual issues that we still face today in the United States.  Even today over 50 years after equality and integration occurred there are still tensions between whites and blacks.  This is because after the slave trade ended the White Settlers still didn’t give former slaves or ancestors of slave’s basic human rights.  They still treated them as less than human, as if they were animals.  It is a shame that we couldn’t be more like the Caribbean and Brazil because they were able to move forward and accept the former slaves as equals, and most importantly as human. 

So numbers really mean nothing in respect to how you treat one another.  Everyone has the right to be treated as Human, almost everything else can be forgiven or at least puts you in a position to be able to move forward, but taking away a person’s right to be treated as Human is unforgivable and we see the results of that today.

Why such negativity towards pastoral people?

            Historians love to neglect the pastoral people and their contribution to world history, but I can't for the life of me understand why.  Pastoral people have always been the ones how have mastered the skill of domesticating useful animals and crops that others have tried and failed at.  Before the Mongols pastoral people had been the ones to introduce domesticated horses to the Chinese Culture along with different types of rice that would allow for larger crop yields especially in times of a drought.  But do the historians like to dig into how these groups of people came to be or how they became so well versed in their trades? No! They just merely pass over them without really acknowledging their importance and value. 

            Something else that I have observed in this book is that the settled societies have such a negative feelings towards these pastoral people.  I mean I get it, in a time when conformity was key and becoming a well established and thriving community was the ideal way to live, how could they possibly understand why some people would choose to ignore this new adaptive lifestyle.  In the mind of these settled societies, they viewed these people as trouble, and anti government.  They actively chose to not be a part of what your society believes in, so I get why they didn't exactly jump at the opportunity to befriend such people.  It is also hard to understand a group of people whose outlook on life is completely different from yours. The settled societies gave up their nomadic lifestyle for a more comfortable one growing their own food.  The no longer believed in putting their lives in the hands of nature, and the migration of animals, they were taking their lives into control.  But what these settled people failed to see is that even though these pastoral people lived on the fringes of society, they were completely free to live their lives as they chose.  They were not under the rule of some power hungry dictator trying to make a name for himself.  They were living just as their ancestors lived and were happy with how their lives were.  They were not concerned about how they can further themselves on the societal totem pole that many of these settled society living people were. 

            So I really can't understand why the historians would choose to neglect these pastoral people.  Maybe it is because their lives were rather boring and mundane, because they didn't have the nonsense that comes with political power that existed in the settled societies.  I think that maybe historians are secretly drawn to drama, because lets be real, people don't really care about the boring history or a relaxed group of people.  People are interested in wars, battles, and disease, those are the things that keep people digging further into the past for answers.

Reading Response # 3

What's the deal with all this peace?

I don't know if it is just me but I am shocked at how little conflict the people of the Sub-Saharan and Saharan regions felt when traveling the long distances along the trade routes.  I feel as though I must have missed something because how it is possible that during a time when subjugation was occurring everywhere that these people who were exposing themselves to the open terrain never came across any rebels? 
This made me think of current times when people of that region are in war torn countries and rebels are constantly waiting for people out in the open to assault, kill, and rob.  How did they get to this point?  If you were to look at the history of these people you would think that this behavior is not surprising but at one time they were able to coexist and understood the need of other people to just get buy.  What has happened to us?  During the time of 300 C.E and on they were constantly doing trades over fast distances and people respected that they were trying to get valuables to those in need.  Now I do understand that there is the remote possibility that the author of our text chose to leave these details out, but nonetheless it makes you wonder.  If at one time people could travel so easily and their greatest concern was health reasons and not about being ambushed mid travel, why can't we do that today?  Pirates and Rebels have taken any sense of security the people living in this region of Africa had.  They can no longer trade with nearby tribes without having some group trying to either steal half of what they buy or forcing them to pay what little money they have to them as a finders fee of sorts.  If you believe in the idea that history repeats itself, then why is it always the bad that seems to repeat and not the good.  Why can't the days of worry free travel repeat and people who have suffered unnecessary persecution be allowed to live freely and provide for their families.  Instead we are constantly being bogged down with reports of innocent families and children being slaughtered because the man of the house couldn't afford the taxes being forced upon them.  I am sure that my idea seams a little idealistic but I choose to believe that mankind will eventually work it out or succumb to the next phase in evolution where problems like this seem obsolete.