Iranian Revolution Blog Post

In my opinion, Shah Reza Khan's, and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's attempts to modernize Iran were legitimate, potentially-effective attempts at modernization. They were some of the few attempts to modernize in the revolutions that we have studied this year that were not harmful or destructive to the people of the country. In China, for example, during The Great Leap Forward, modernization attempts led to the starvation of millions of people, as well as the decline of the economy throughout China. Modernization, however, was effective but not worth the means of getting modernized.

The two Shah's reforms were not radical like the ones of The Great Leap Forward, but rather moderate so as to usher in modernization without causing harsh implications on the Iranian people. These reforms included changing the ancient name Persia to Iran, modeling the government like the modern European state, centralizing the government, collecting taxes, writing down laws and apointing judges. These reforms did not cause any deaths, and they increased modernization in Iran, although not on as large a scale as the modernization that took place during The Great Leap Forward.

^Starving woman during the Great Leap Forward

Why do you think violence allows for more modernization like such? I believe it does because it is easier to enforce rules with violence, though it is never the best way.

Egypt

In the revolution that is going on in Egypt this year, I find Egypt's relationship with the United States to be both puzzling and intriguing, for many reasons. For instance, I found it unbelievable and wrong that the government in Egypt was corrupt, in that fake elections were being held under Mubarak when he was in power, and yet the US still sided with him while he was president. Personally, I believe that it is wrong for the US to do so because they are holding a hypocritical standard for themselves by promoting democracy worldwide while also siding with Mubarak. As an upstanding democratic nation, we should have condemned anything other than democracy to the start, perhaps so that the Egyptian government would implement a change in government so that they can remain allies with us.

^Hosni Mubarak, 4th president of Egypt

However, considering the specifics of the relationship between the US and Egypt, I think that, although it is horrible and hypocritical for the US to support a corrupt government with a democracy like our own, it would be even worse for the US to break ties with Egypt, since they are an important ally. Firstly, Egypt and Israel are the United States most closely associated allies in the middle East. If the US broke ties with Egypt, and something were to happen in the Middle East that required the US to get involved, they would have no means of doing so other than through the small country of Israel. Secondly, Mubarak was one of very few leaders that supported Israel in the Middle East, so if the US broke condemned his non-democratic policies and removed him from office, the government would most likely be replaced with an anti-Israel leader or group. I believe that this would be bad because Israel, too is an important ally of the US, and if Egypt turned against them they would be completely surrounded by countries that were against it.

Do you side the the first paragraph's view that the US should not have supported the non-democratic government that was under Mubarak, because it would be hypocritical? Or do you side with the second paragraph's view that the benefits of keeping ties with Egypt outweigh the implications of hypocrisy that would be caused by supporting Egypt?

1989 and the Fall of Communism in Different Countries

For me, studying this unit was very interesting because I had previous insight from my spring research paper, which involved the fall of communism in East Germany. In the East German Revolution, also referred to as the peaceful revolution, the church was the key factor in maintaining non-violent protests, and civil reaction on the part of the government and military. Reading into other countries involved in the fall of communism in Europe in 1989, I further understood the factors that made countries such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, be carried out in a peaceful fashion as well. Poland in particular had a peaceful revolution that was led by the church.

^Monday Demonstrations in East Germany- led by the church

In the Polish revolution, the government banned religion, causing the Catholic church to go underground. Then, when Polish-raised Pope John Paul II became pope in the mist of revolution, the people returned to their ties with the Catholic church. The church then published underground fliers, pamphlets, communication devices, etc., to spread word of revolution. They, like in East Germany, had a peaceful revolution that was spearheaded by the church.

^1989 Protesting in the streets of Poland

I personally believe that the churches had such a significant impact on the 1989 revolutions because they placed value on morality before politics. Because the churches placed value on morality, the government and the government's enforcing regime had trouble inflicting suffering or violence upon people who had no intention of anything but peaceful protesting. Thus, the churches almost carried out a sort of Satyagraha campaign. The difference between this the Satyagraha campaign that took place in India (in which violence ensued regardless of the peaceful campaign) was that the church had roots in the European countries that were too deep to be ignored or suppressed, whereas in India the Satyagraha campaign was established and led by one man (Gandhi). Thus being, I do not believe that any other institution could have carried out the peace that was made possible by the church in the Polish and East German Revolutions.

Do you agree that the reason the church could carry out peace was because it has been promoting peace for hundreds of years? Do you think that any other institutions, perhaps that were not as deeply rooted as the church, could have carried out the peaceful protest that the churches in Poland and East Germany carried out?

Hatred against Gandhi, Man of Peace

^Mahatma Gandhi, peaceful leader

When studying Mahatma Gandhi, I found it interesting that some of the Indian people, Hindus and Muslims alike, loved him, while others, mostly extremists, hated him.

I though it was strange that people would hate Gandhi for a number of reasons. First, not only did Gandhi not endorse violent policies, but he also condemned them. Thus, Gandhi gave others no reason to hate him because he did not do anything bad to them to begin with. At least in my own personal experiences, as naive as they may be, there is usually a reason why someone may hate someone else. In addition, Gandhi did not force his policies on anyone. He was a completely harmless political ruler, who used only peaceful means to protest.

Even though I could not understand why people would hate Gandhi at first, after thinking about one of his policies, this made slightly more sense to me. Gandhi supported the idea of a united Muslim/Hindu state. Thus, his views, which were widely supported by the majority of Indians, contradicted those of the Muslims who wanted a separate Muslim division. Perhaps the people who wanted a separate Muslim division viewed him as a threat to what they wanted, thus making him an enemy, no matter how gentle or harmless he truly was. Even still, this contradiction of political views does not seem to merit some of the nicknames given to Gandhi by people who hate him, including the 'destroyer of India' and the 'betrayer.'

I feel that someone of Gandhi's moral standard does not merit hate from anyone; he should be regarded as the peaceful man that he is, rather than the man who endorses policies that one may disagree with. Do you agree that Gandhi does not merit these names? Or do you think discrepancy in political views can justify political slander?

Russian Revolution Blog Post

This reading was very interesting to me because of its relevance to what is going on in modern times, in Egypt. While reading about the peaceful protest in Russia that lead to Bloody Sunday, I immediately recognized a parallel between that and the peaceful protesting going on in Egypt; the difference being that the one in Egypt did not end with the military slaughter of 60 people like the 1905 revolt in Russia. At first, the fact that two similar protests could have such polar opposite ends was puzzling to me. However, after looking deeper into the reasoning behind both governmental reactions I was able to make some sense of it.

I believe that Tsar Nicolas II ordered the military to shoot the protestors because he thought that he had divine, superior power, that he was in no way ready to give up or share. Because he believed he should have power, he reacted to the protestors in such a way that would secure total control over the people. In contrast however, Mubarak had no intention of running to maintain his position this September, since he had already been in power for 3 decades. Because he had no intention of retaining power, any power grab through blood shed would not benefit him whatsoever, in addition to being counter productive to the country as a whole.

Do you agree with my reasoning that the different military responses are due to the leader's desire to remain in control of the government? If not, what do you believe is the cause of this?

V Peaceful protesting in Egypt

V Line of military shooting on Bloody Sunday

Child Labor in the Industrial Revolution

While reading about child labor in the Industrial Revolution, I felt horrible about the poor working conditions children as young as 8 or 9 had to face on a daily basis. In 1750, about 14% of the working force was made up of children. On average children worked from 12 to 14 hour days, with an hour break for lunch. In addition, these children were given minimal food and water, in order to maximize the factory's revenue. What astounds me even more, which i found out while researching this topic, is that that child labor is still largely enforced in countries throughout the world. Unicef estimates that 218 million children around the world are in the work force, and that about 2.5 million of these children live in industrialized nations, not just in rural parts of Africa and Asia!
The next question that came to mind was why the British successfully battled against child labor during and after the Industrial Revolution, while other modern countries still have not done anything about it. This effort to battle child labor in Britain included the passing of the Factory Act of 1833, which placed restrictions on the amount of work hours children of different ages were allowed to work. In addition, more progress was made in this effort early in the 20th century as well, by activists such as Jane Addams.
In my opinion, what sets Britain apart in the area of progress is that they were already involved in reform. As opposed to other countries that employ children, Britain was in the midst of extreme change, involving a new age of invention. This age of inventive change encouraged people to strive to change other things other than machinery as well, such as child labor laws. In other countries however, there is no modern "industrial revolution" taking place, and thus no encouragement for change.

^Soot covered faces of children working in a factory in the Industrial Revolution