We have all heard of the Crusades: there were a bunch of them, a lot of people died, and they were religiously fueled to reclaim the Holy land. Well, in American Studies this week, I couldn't help but connect those tumultuous events to the Bosnian Civil War. It was similar, the Christians (In this case Serbia and Croatia) against the Muslims (Those from Bosnia). It seemed strange to me that, thousands of years after the Crusades, we have an event that mimics it in some ways. Now, I understand that the connection is not flawless, but again, it cannot be overlooked. For starters, multiple nations that had previous conflicts came together again, this being Croatia and Serbia, just as before, where in the initial Crusades the same thing occurred with France, Britain, and others. The difference is that the goal of the Bosnian war was not necessarily to reclaim a single city, but territory in general. Additionally, the other goal of the Crusades were to eliminate as many of a certain religion as possible, or a persecution, which is prevalent in the Bosnian war as well. Combatants on both sides, although more so on the side of the Christians, participated in purposeful attacks on the civilian population, including rapes and slaughters. The one part of the association that I cannot fit in in the intervention of the United Nations. Now, my knowledge of the Crusades is currently limited, but it does not seem as if an external force intervened all that much. So, a question I would leave with any readers is: Can you fit in the United Nations to this? If so, how? If not, why?
Additionally, I would question the success of this "Crusade." It seems as if the goals of the Christians were to eliminate and conquer, and they certainly eliminated many, but did they really succeed in terms of territory? I mean, they got pushed back by the UN, and they were not allowed to keep the area. Also, the repurcussions seemed pretty taxing, and the world's attention was re-focused on the Balkans in a negative light. So, I would also ask the questions: What did this accomplish? How does it compare to how the original Crusades ended?
-Chavez Rodriguez
Friday, May 29, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Violence and Oppression (Semester 2 Post 3)
Is a militant or violent response to oppression justified?
The definition of oppression according to Google is prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. This leads me to believe that oppression in itself is a violent action, and therefore the action of a violent or militant response is comparable to an act of self defense. In the Deceleration of Independence, the founding fathers said that, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." This section refers to the decision of the colonies to rebel against Great Britain, and that they led a revolution because that government had become oppressive. In the Decleration of our nation, it is stated that it is a right to rebel when oppressed, and as we know from our studies, the Revolutionary War was indeed violent and militant. Oppression is an act of open aggression, and if in diplomacy that warrants a deceleration of war, then it does so in this situation as well. It is our nature as humans to remove aspects of our lives that cause pain and suffering, and so it is our nature to attempt to throw off oppressive behavior as well when forced with no alternative. Considering the Revolutionary War again, the colonies were not in a position where diplomacy and words could sway their oppressors, and it is the case for those who are being oppressed. They cannot reason with those who are violent with any response other than violence in return. Now, this thought process seems pretty closed-minded, and I understand that there will be instances where violence is not the only response, but the question is if it is justified, and I believe that, given the circumstances regarding the oppression of a group, violence can be justified. To end on a few questions: Can you come up with an example where oppression has not been met with violence? Also, although slightly off topic, I noticed that many of the modern world powers have gone through some sort of revolution. Is this connected? Does a nation have to undergo a revolution against oppression to become more powerful?
-Chavez Rodriguez
The definition of oppression according to Google is prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. This leads me to believe that oppression in itself is a violent action, and therefore the action of a violent or militant response is comparable to an act of self defense. In the Deceleration of Independence, the founding fathers said that, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." This section refers to the decision of the colonies to rebel against Great Britain, and that they led a revolution because that government had become oppressive. In the Decleration of our nation, it is stated that it is a right to rebel when oppressed, and as we know from our studies, the Revolutionary War was indeed violent and militant. Oppression is an act of open aggression, and if in diplomacy that warrants a deceleration of war, then it does so in this situation as well. It is our nature as humans to remove aspects of our lives that cause pain and suffering, and so it is our nature to attempt to throw off oppressive behavior as well when forced with no alternative. Considering the Revolutionary War again, the colonies were not in a position where diplomacy and words could sway their oppressors, and it is the case for those who are being oppressed. They cannot reason with those who are violent with any response other than violence in return. Now, this thought process seems pretty closed-minded, and I understand that there will be instances where violence is not the only response, but the question is if it is justified, and I believe that, given the circumstances regarding the oppression of a group, violence can be justified. To end on a few questions: Can you come up with an example where oppression has not been met with violence? Also, although slightly off topic, I noticed that many of the modern world powers have gone through some sort of revolution. Is this connected? Does a nation have to undergo a revolution against oppression to become more powerful?
-Chavez Rodriguez
Friday, April 24, 2015
NATO and World War III (Semester 2, Post #2)
So, you probably read the title and were pretty confused. Let me clarify: my guiding question is essentially, could the formation of NATO have lead to another world war? A few other questions spawn off of this, such as what classifies a "world war," as there were certainly conflicts involving NATO, but that comes later.
When we learned about the Formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which consisted of the United States, Canada, and Europe, the first connection I saw was that NATO was not entirely different from the alliances leading up to World War I. I mean, just like the Triple Entente and the Central Powers, NATO is a military alliance of nations, except this one spans multiple continents. If, during the Cold War, NATO was showing that these nations were willing to use force to contain the spread of Communism, how is that different from how the Central Powers began in case of a war. Just like how Germany needed Austria-Hungary to back them up in case a war broke out, the United States wanted assurance that they would have allies if a war broke out with the Soviet Union. This leads to my second part, which is that, if a world war is one that spans multiple fronts and continents, could the Cold War be World War III? Could we just as easily be referring to things such as the Vietnam Front or the Korean Front instead of the Vietnam War and Korean War? I understand that it looks different from the other world wars, but warfare and the definition of what is "conventional" changes constantly. I mean, looking at the conflicts we have learned about in this class, we have seen differences in what a war can be. Anything to a revolution to total war to the more modern insurgency, we have seen change about what it means to fight a war. And so, to leave you with some questions; Was the Cold War essentially World War III? If not, what are the differences? Lastly, could NATO have boiled into the beginning of World War III, or did it already?
-Chavez Rodriguez
When we learned about the Formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which consisted of the United States, Canada, and Europe, the first connection I saw was that NATO was not entirely different from the alliances leading up to World War I. I mean, just like the Triple Entente and the Central Powers, NATO is a military alliance of nations, except this one spans multiple continents. If, during the Cold War, NATO was showing that these nations were willing to use force to contain the spread of Communism, how is that different from how the Central Powers began in case of a war. Just like how Germany needed Austria-Hungary to back them up in case a war broke out, the United States wanted assurance that they would have allies if a war broke out with the Soviet Union. This leads to my second part, which is that, if a world war is one that spans multiple fronts and continents, could the Cold War be World War III? Could we just as easily be referring to things such as the Vietnam Front or the Korean Front instead of the Vietnam War and Korean War? I understand that it looks different from the other world wars, but warfare and the definition of what is "conventional" changes constantly. I mean, looking at the conflicts we have learned about in this class, we have seen differences in what a war can be. Anything to a revolution to total war to the more modern insurgency, we have seen change about what it means to fight a war. And so, to leave you with some questions; Was the Cold War essentially World War III? If not, what are the differences? Lastly, could NATO have boiled into the beginning of World War III, or did it already?
-Chavez Rodriguez
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Romaticization of Prohibition (Semester 2 Post #1)
Prohibition certainly had its ups and downs, but its legacy has lived on for a long time. This has been accomplished through mass media and the romanticization of the subject. Personally, I think that movies, books, and other forms of media portraying prohibition would be kind of boring. I mean, the subject of prohibiting alcohol in itself isn't all that interesting, but it is the effects of it that are. For example, topics such as the mob or speakeasies are what movies and books are made about. So, I believe that prohibition is romanticized so often because of the broad number of topics that it can encompass. Additionally, I believe it is romanticized so much because of the feeling of independence that many who dodged the act felt. People exhibited individual rights to drink alcohol by visiting speakeasies, and it must have been pretty exhilarating. It was a free lifestyle to drink and party right under the nose of the law, and I feel that this kind of mentality is interesting to convey. Therefore, it was easier to romanticize. It really was a desirable lifestyle for many people, and so it was one of those mentalities that rose out of the twenties and the prohibition era.
On a different note, when most people think of prohibition, the first thing they think of is gangsters. The image is usually shifty men with accents in striped black suits and fedoras holding tommy guns. Why do people think this? Romanticization and dramatization have made this image symbolic of prohibition. Another example of dramatization and pop culture taking over prohibition is the Great Gatsby. There are very strong elements of prohibition times in that novel, such as the parties, the post war mentalities, the alleged crime connections, and the lifestyles portrayed. This is obviously a very famous novel, as we took time in class to read it. Do you think that the Great Gatsby accurately displayed prohibition times? Or was it more romanticized that factual?
-Chavez Rodriguez
On a different note, when most people think of prohibition, the first thing they think of is gangsters. The image is usually shifty men with accents in striped black suits and fedoras holding tommy guns. Why do people think this? Romanticization and dramatization have made this image symbolic of prohibition. Another example of dramatization and pop culture taking over prohibition is the Great Gatsby. There are very strong elements of prohibition times in that novel, such as the parties, the post war mentalities, the alleged crime connections, and the lifestyles portrayed. This is obviously a very famous novel, as we took time in class to read it. Do you think that the Great Gatsby accurately displayed prohibition times? Or was it more romanticized that factual?
-Chavez Rodriguez
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)