Elizabeth: AP-Euro Blog

Sunday, February 11, 2007

What's Going On In The 19th Century?

19th Century Blog
The 19th century was filled with all different kinds of "isms:" Imperialism, colonialism, conservativism, liberalism, nationalism, militarism, mercantilism, socialism, romanticism and communism.
The main classification of what is going on in the 19th century is using PERSIA. The political, economical, religious, social, intellectual and arts make up the 19th century PERSIA'ed.
Political aspects in the 19th century were derived from the desire for power and prestige. This desire was caused by a surge in nationalism, and European feeling of superiority. Nationalism motivated national rivalry. Liberalism was a movement for freedom and a change. Conservatism countered and tried to crush Liberalism, by trying to keep things the way they used to be. The Industrial Revolution came along, and created many more jobs. People moved to cities from suburban areas, and the balance of power within the nation was shifted. The middle class was also expanded. Karl Marx tried to install communism in Europe. He believed in a classless society and wanted the government to control all property. More people were able to vote after the political evolution of Great Britain. The unification of Italy and Germany created a balance of power and creating new countries. Feminism showed people that individualism was important. The 19th century was a time filled with political change.
Economics greatly affected the world during the 19th century. Mercantilism was a major factor. Europeans colonized the New World, Africa, and Asia so they had new markets for their goods. Additionally, Europeans needed a new source for natural resources and raw materials to keep up with the expanding population. They wanted to increase the number of imports and decrease the number of exports. The Dreyfus Affair stopped the inflow of money in France and the Industrial Revolution was the start of economic advancement. There were so many new jobs and inventions that the mass production of materials skyrocketed. The prices of many things dropped because of all the inventions and improvements, and this impulsed people to buy indulgences, which spurred the economy. Communists worked to get rid of the poor working conditions and fought for the abolition of property, which really impacted Europe. The economy of Crimea was ruined for decades due to the destruction form the Crimean War. The economy of Europe was affected greatly by the Congress of Vienna because of the redistribution of lands and the new alliances that were formed. During the French Revolution of 1848 the sans-culottes aligned themselves with socialism because it promised economic security. The results of feminism allowed lower classes to earn wages, and more women were able to work in the numerous factories.
The things that happened during the 19th century had religious consequences. The Dreyfus Affair showed the division between religions, and how the government judged people for their religion. Anti-Semitism was a cause why Dreyfus was imprisoned. The people affected by the Irish Potato Famine thought that the famine was a punishment from God. Religion became less important during the Industrial Revolution because people were concentrating more on surviving and working in the new factories. After the Congress of Vienna, there was religious turmoil. There was a fight to see which religion (Lutheran or Roman Catholic) would be superior in each state. Religion began to separate from the government. Karl Marx was opposed to religion because he sad it was against the concept of Communism. The Crimean War was a war between Muslims (Ottoman Turks) and Catholics (Russians) and the Greek War of Independence was a British war against the Muslim Turks. Feminism upset the Victorian and previously religious view of women in society. Religion’s role in the world changed a lot during the 19th century.
There were several social things that developed during the 19th century. Racism became very evident when Europeans began to colonize places. They treated the colonized people terribly and even enslaved them. They thought they were superior to the rest of the world. Xenophobia (the fear of foreigners) developed in China after the Boxer Rebellion. Women’s rights were fought for with feminism, and they made some advances. Social barriers began to fall between classes. Social Darwinism became extremely influential. Darwin had created theories about evolution, and they were applied to social situations and life. People began to believe that adaptation and natural selection were natural parts of life. Some said that it was normal for the strong to survive at the expense of the weak, and that the rich were better adapted to their environments than the poor. Some Social Darwinists even went as far to say that it was wrong and morally incorrect to help those weaker than you because it would be promoting the survival of people that were unfit. There were many things during the 19th century that changed society forever.
Intellectually, there were advances during the 19th century. Karl Marx and Communism greatly challenged intellectual thinking. Revolutionary ideas began to spread and the idea of no social security was defied. Feminism was a huge intellectual movement. Its ideas appeared in literature everywhere. Inventions from China were brought back to Europe and imitated. Europeans learned things from their colonies’ people. The intellectual effects the 19th century had on the world were very influential.
Arts were important during the 19th century. It gave people a way to express their feelings about this that was going on. Art portrayed the gloom of the Industrial Revolution, like the pollution, horrible working conditions, and how it destroyed nature. It allowed people to show their views of different politics, such as Marxism and Communism. Political cartoons helped people challenge the government and think. Art was a significant part of the 19th century as it permitted people to express themselves.
There was so much going on in the 19th century! There was much change taking place, and the stage was being set for today. Modern ideas were formed and countries and nations were modernized. New countries were formed, others explored and noticed for the resources they had. Things were invented that bettered and worsened peoples lives. Religion caused wars and then took a backseat to people living their lives. They economy was amplified because of imperialism and colonialism. Empires were created during the “Scramble for Colonies” and nations competed to be the most powerful in the world. Some of the most influential and useful inventions came form this century during the Industrial Revolution. The 19th century was indeed a very important 100 years, changing the world to what we know it as.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Nuclear Proliferation: extra credit

Nuclear Proliferation The spread of nuclear weapons and its technology to countries that do not already have nuclear weapons is called nuclear proliferation. These countries obtaining nuclear weapons are often opposed by Western countries that already have nuclear weapons and information. The United Sates particularly does not want any country that they are not allied with to be able to develop nuclear weapons. The most recent example of this is the situation in North Korea. The major fear is that these countries, including North Korea, will use the nuclear weapons to engage in nuclear warfare. The world is in disagreement over who should and who should not be able to have nuclear technology. Many countries have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There are different opinions on the denying of other nations to have nuclear weapons. Some believe that it is up to them to protect the world from the danger of other countries having nuclear weapons. Others believe that it's not their right to tell other countries that they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons while they have nuclear weapons themselves. That seems to be hypocritical- saying ‘we can have nuclear technology, but you can’t.’ On Monday, 9 October 2006, North Korea announced that they had conducted their first nuclear tests, and had developed nuclear weapons. They claim that they are serious about developing a nuclear weapons program. The entire world is nervous about the consequences of this announcement. The US President, George Bush, is afraid to go to with another country because of the issues with neighboring countries that might develop. America does not want to cause any more problems with the world or lose any more allies- North Korea’s neighbors are all “friends” of the States: South Korea, Japan and China. Others are afraid that the North Korea’s situation will jeopardize regional peace and security and that the international community is at stake. I feel that with nuclear proliferation there is a double standard. It would obviously be very dangerous if these nuclear weapons got into the wrong hands. Nuclear weapons can cause a lot of damage, and are even capable of destroying the entire world. That is a hard concept to understand, as many countries just feel that they need nuclear weapons for protection. Others just have the technology, there in case of an emergency. I do not believe that it is fair for Westernized countries (i.e. The United States) to tell other countries, such as North Korea, that they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons or technology, when they have it themselves. It’s not democratic for a supposedly democratic nation to try to deny another country a right to their own nuclear weapons. It’s true that this country might not be responsible enough to have control over these immensely dangerous weapons, and the world may be in danger, but the North Koreans may feel threatened by the United States, and think that nuclear weapons are necessary for their protection. North Korea is not telling the US that they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons, so why should the US tell North Korea that they cannot have nuclear weapons? This is where the double standard is evident, and the debate over nuclear proliferation manifests. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/10/12/2003331464

Thursday, October 5, 2006

Current Event (5 October 2006)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/09/28/1911610.html The Many Faces of Belinda & Tie By Michelle Mandel This article is about former Toronto Maple Leaf Tie Domi and his affair with politician Belinda Stronach, which led to his divorce with ex-wife Leanne Domi. The author is a female, which greatly affects her opinion on Tie Domi’s adultery. Her religion, race & political party are unknown, although these facts don’t even really apply to the article, Mandel concentrates more on the ethics of the issue. As a woman, she is obviously immensely upset with Domi and Stronach, and sides with Leanne. As the media would say, Michelle Mandel is on “Team Leanne!” This article contains a great deal of propaganda, but Mandel doesn’t even subtly try to sway the reader- she flat out says her opinion. Mandel is extremely blunt in her comments, but she is very persuasive. Such as this sentence, in response to Stronach’s complaint that her life is so public: “Poor thing. How could the Magna heiress possibly expect that carrying on an affair with a married, well-known Toronto Maple Leaf may turn into a public soap opera?” She is publicly criticizing Belinda, and shows her detest for the rich politician in her writing. Mandel is also super sarcastic, which can influence a person’s opinion. An amusing example in this sentence: “Hmm, photogenic politician with a penchant for romantic scandal links up with a popular fire hydrant of a hockey hero, who just happens to be married with three young children -- why would anyone care?” Mandel’s writing is funny and interesting to read, and I personally have a hard time disagreeing with her. Propaganda is additionally evident as Mandel uses “name-calling.” She attacks Belinda by saying the head representative for the Liberal women’s caucus should never steal another woman’s husband and be OK with it- plus feel it won’t hurt her feminist influence. Mandel is really mad at Belinda for being a horrible representative of women. She also is critical of Tie, the cheating husband. She says that if anyone has a double standard its Domi. She also makes fun of him and says that he didn’t like a sweet picture of him and his now ex-wife, Leanne, in the press a year ago because it would have ruined his ‘tough-guy’ image. Mandel’s writing is incredibly emotional, and she appeals to women and men alike for their hatred of unfaithful partners. This document is public, written for people to read. She writes using a few facts, many opinions to try to change the reader’s point-of-view. Mandel is very close to the event, as the scandal and divorce appeared in the media just last week. Her information is very relevant and up-to-date, and she is exceptionally well-researched. Mandel includes quotes from her interview with Leanne Domi from 2 years ago to try to convince the reader that Tie was a cheater and liar even back then. Mandel does use words to convey bias, and may be oversimplifying the issue, but her writing is especially good. Before I read this article, I had always been a fan of Tie Domi as a hockey player when he was on the Leafs. I always thought of him as a nice family man, with his 3 cute kids, and pretty, supportive wife. But I didn’t know Leanne’s side of the story. When he got involved with Belinda I was disheartened in my support of Tie. SinceI have heard Leanne’s opinion by reading this article, I now agree with Michelle Mandel. I have joined “Team Leanne!” Sorry, Tie, now that you are retired from the Leafs, unfaithful to your wife and dating Belinda Stronach, the selfish rich girl, I am no longer a fan of your team. ~~Elizabeth*

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Current Event (14 September 2006)

Bush defends war on terror http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/04/1800812-cp.html The author is letting her opinion affect the facts, trying to pursuade the reader to agree with her. The author, Beth Gorham's, point-of-view affects the position she gives on the issue. She is a Canadian reflecting on the American War on Terror. Although Canadians are fighting in the war, they are not as directly involved in Iraq as American troops, and therefore may have different opinions. She is also a journalist, not in the armed forces, and does not experience the affects of the war firsthand. Everything about her life affects her position on President Bush's 9/11 address. This is a public document that the author has written, which means she meant for her opinion on this topic to be read by others. Gorham provides the reader with facts and opinions, but many of her "facts" contain elements of propaganda. This makes the information distorted, to sway the reader's opinion. She subtly expresses her diagreement with Bush in her statements, such as in this sentence: "Bush has been blitzing the airwaves in the run-up to the Sept. 11 milestone, hoping to retain the upper hand on terror...." Gorham is implying that she does not believe Bush actually has an 'upper hand on terror' and that he is despretly trying to regain it. She also points out that she disagrees with the President in this sentence: "He's been casting anti-terrorism as a broad ideological struggle like the Cold War or the fight against Nazism in the Second World War, while insisting that a democratic Iraq is a vital step." Gorham obviously does not believe that the War on Terror is equivalent to these major wars in history, and seems to think that he is exaturating the situation. She also seems to disagree with the White House in this statement: "He went further, in a 17-minute speech the White House insisted was not political." Gorham is trying to convince the reader very ingeniously that the speech was if fact political. Another time when the author tries to change the reader's opinion is the following sentence: "He acknowledged that Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11, something a sizable group of Americans still believe after five years of Bush and others linking the two." She is cleverly hinting to the reader that she believes Bush mislead Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terroist attacks. She again tries to change the reader's position on the issue in this sentence: "Bush's recent public relations offensive included a well-timed announcement last week that top terrorists once held in secret CIA prisons, including the reported 9-11 mastermind, were going to the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." Gorham is telling the reader that she thinks Bush deliberately made this announcement when Americans were preoccupied remembering the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and were filled with anger towards the terrorists. She believes that Bush felt the country would be more accepting to his confession at this particular time, and was trying to play them. Gorham is additionally expressing her point-of-view in this sentence: "But Bush gave no ground Monday on the U.S. presence in Iraq, where more than 2,600 U.S. soldiers have died." She feels that the president omitted a key and important part in his speech, and that he should have talked about the US's position in the war, but avoided the topic to decrease anger towards him and his administration on such a somber and sad day. The author has deliberately used words and phrases in a way to affect the reader's opinion in a slyand cunning way. The author is very close to the event, as it happened the day before she published this article. She is a primary source, referring to the speech she personally watched George Bush give. Gorham's information is very up-to-date and relevant. Beth Gorham does use strong words to suggest bias. She says "blitzing" instead of targeting and "insisting" versus telling. She also says "well-timed" to suggest she feels that the timing of the announcement was perfect for Bush to trick people into agreeing with his belief. Many of the words that Gorham uses describe her point-of-view, instead of unpersuasively talking about Bush's address to the nation. The author, Beth Gorham, is using propaganda in her article to try to influence the reader to view the issue her way. She very convincingly uses words and phrases to sway the reader's opinion, so one must read extremely carefully as to not be influenced by the writer's delivery or our own biases.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Welcome

Welcome! This is my blog. I'll be using it for AP European History. ( notes and other important information) ~~Elizabeth*