The Struggle Is Real

Women during the 1800's were regarded in a very different light compared to now. They were viewed more like property rather than people. Society saw them as inferior to men not only in their physical build but also in their intelligence. Women were allowed to own property if the were not married. If they owned property before marriage then they would bestow everything to their husband. They also could not vote, only men could do so. Women also were not taught traditional subjects in school, that's to say, if they were sent to school at all. They were taught how to sew, prepare meals, how to take care of the house and most importantly, how to please their husband because there's nothing more important than that. Women as a gender have come a long way from treatment during the 1800's, but that does not mean they had to stand by and watch as eventually men moved past their egotistical standings of how women partake in society. Women fought for their own rights when no one else would and we still fight for them today and although it is not perfect, it's far better than when women started.

To understand why women started this movement; looking back at the basic structure of a housewife is the perfect place to start. Women were expected to carry out four main characteristics, piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity. It was thought women had to be religious (definition of piety) since they came from eve and she made life for humans horrible and it is their debt to pay. Purity referring to virginity and staying so until marriage. If they did not follow this characteristic they were viewed not as women anymore but rather as a lower being of life unfit and unworthy of the love from man. Because we all know that a man's genitals are important enough to have the power to deem woman everywhere worthless to society. Then, there is submissiveness which is essentially making sure that the husband is always happy. To ensure that nothing ever ruptured in this pattern; corsets were invented as the new fashion trend so everyone could have an hourglass figure. Women could not stand up for long amounts of time without passing out due to the lack of air getting into her system so obviously men had to look out for their female companion. Since they were so inferior by breaking rib bones and other medical injuries all in the name of fashion; what would women ever do without men helping them? Lastly domesticity, which ties into submissiveness in that they have to cater to everyone who enters their home. They have to be the perfect hostess and the house has to be in perfect order and reflect the perfect life. 

Society decided to keep women even farther away from actually creating any impact in daily life that they instilled the private sphere and public sphere. The private sphere referred to the home in that it was private and kept woman away from the evils of the outside known as the public sphere or men's world. Men courageously went out and earned money for their families all just to protect the fragile soul of his wife. He knew that she obviously could not handle all the demons that came along with working outside the house. 

Eventually, women became sick and tired of the way they were treated by society and teamed up together to form the Seneca Falls Convention. About three hundred  people appeared for the convention most of which were women and a few men. They sat down together and constructed a document with a similar structure to the Declaration Of Independence of all the rights they felt as humans they were entitled to; it is called The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. These rights included voting, women are equal to men, if there is a divorce or the husband dies she automatically has the rights to her children, they can own their own property when married, freedom of speech, has the right to education, they be allowed to talk on stage, and she can work out in the public sphere. Fighting for women's right to vote was almost eradicated from being within these resolutions. People who attended the  conference wanted women's suffrage to be legalized but they were weary on the fact that the rest of the country may find it absurd and deny to abide by their document. But, Frederick Douglass was able to convince the unsure that it was a good idea. 

 

Unfortunately for as forward thinking the Seneca Falls Convention for it's time they fell short of equality for all. The convention neglected to include Native American women, slaves, and poor white women. The convention was created to cater to the rich and middle class white women. Which is why needs like abolishing slavery or improved working conditions were not included in the resolutions. 

Of all the resolutions Seneca Falls discussed the most important one is women are equal to men. to me, it is clear we haven't reached that height of equality. Everywhere on the news I continuously see stories endorsing sexism and encouraging girls to fit a certain image. The amount of times I have seen an article titled "Women's Fashion Trends That Men Hate" is unnerving; as if they expect for women to dress for men rather than themselves. Women still make seventy-five cents to every man's dollar and that's just white woman. Woman of different cultures and skin colors make even less than that. All media does is critique women's choices and then praise men for doing the same thing. The most recent example of this is when Sam Smith won a Grammy and called out his ex in thanks because if he had not broke his heart he would not have received three Grammy's. The media went ballistic, congratulating him on being able to throw his ex under the bus. Similarly, last year Taylor Swift did the same thing and the media attacked her for it. Saying how could she ever be so rude to her ex and other things along those lines. 

Society still has saved a special place for women, asking them all the ridiculously sexist questions. Which Parks and Recreation perfectly illustrates how absurd it is in their latest episode. When one of the main character's runs for Congress and they just attack his wife for not meeting the expectations of an ideal wife. Due to the fact that she has very clear stances on issues in government and world wide affairs. In the clip featured below she is able to highlight the double standards and issues with all the judgement.   

(Side note: can everyone please appreciate how she call out meninists on their view of men being under women)

If this inequality between men and women is so clear cut that a very popular comedy show has to bring the issue up to reveal how ridiculous it is then it must be very relevant. Even in the show they display how even after giving these powerful statements that people still do not believe in what they had to say. Highlighting how ignorance is still a problem and how peoples' view of women's equality is a split matter.  

Then there are these slam poets who also make clear the issues of how women are viewed in society. But, they also add in the mostly forgotten side of darker skinned. Pointing out the differences between the two even though they are still the same gender. Speaking out the stereotypes assigned to them based on those facts. They continue on saying that feminism is not that, feminism is made for everyone no matter who you are gender, race regardless and we should not apply hurtful stereotypes upon each other. It is important to point out that one of the girls says that women are still viewed as inferior to men. That they are delicate and are able to get out of situations but showing that side of them off. Which is an ideology that was fought against by the Seneca Falls Convention that still is present in our society today.

In all, since the 1800's the condition of how women are treated has drastically improved. This is due to the Seneca Falls Convention and women who never stopped fighting for their rights. Today women and men still fight for equality and promote the ideas of feminism. It is even seen in our pop culture. If we all come together and raise awareness of things that should not occur in 1800's, then why is it still socially acceptable to view women this way in 2015?

For The Masses Or Himself?

President Jackson had a lot of controversy surrounding his position in office. Some people loved him while others could not stand him. This is how he developed two nicknames throughout his presidency; “The people’s president” and “King Andrew”. Some referred to him as the People’s President for a number of reasons. He was the first President to actually start out as someone who has experienced the middle class. Being born in the woods in the Carolinas he was raised up a humble man. He later enrolled in the army serving in both in the American Revolution and The War of 1812; where he was captured as a prisoner of war. Jackson then became a representative for Tennessee in Congress. People used all this background information to touch upon that he would be a good President and know how to make decisions in favor of the people rather than the rich. Which, in some ways he did attest to, like by vetoing the Second Bank’s charter. The Second Bank was a company funded by Congress that was not actually owned by the government that dealt with the debt of America’s wars. Jackson thought that Congress should not be able to erect a private company to deal with the country’s money. Congress felt like this was a foolish move on Jackson’s part; they were wrong. The people were thrilled by this; it gave power back to the smaller banks and small businesses. Which was a key factor to Jackson’s successful reelection. These are some reasons as to why President Jackson was referred to as “The Peoples President”.  

Jackson was also called “King Andrew” because of his tyrannical tendencies throughout his terms. He first exhibited this behavior when he was first welcomed into office and started what is known as the Spoils System. Where Jackson fired all the people in government he possibly could and replaced them with his friends who were not as qualified as the previous place holders. People became weary of Jackson’s ways; saying that he was just going to bring back the ways of monarchy upon America. Later, the word that the President had a secret alliance called the Kitchen Cabinet. Which consisted of unofficial advisors Jackson had constructed. Helping him make decisions with the direction that the government was heading in. Many became infuriated with these private meetings thinking that individuals not elected by the country should have much say in the final stages of an agreement. This is why Jackson won the nickname “King Andrew”.

My personal opinion on President Jackson and how we should remember is as “King Andrew”. Although, I do believe he had little to no intention of establishing a monarchy. I think he made so many questionable decisions that it out ways the good. His repetitive action of firing and rehiring until his secretary did as they were told and replacing positions with his friends was very suspicious. Honestly, his reasoning behind everything was petty and lame on his part. You could tell they were more of excuses rather than reasons. He was just trying to cover and justify his mistakes. Like how he justified the Kitchen Cabinet meetings; he said that it was because people in office had been removed from real life struggles for far too long to make proper accusations. Which makes sense, but these people were elected on the terms that they knew the problems they needed to fix in America. They stated them clearly while campaigning and should continue to fight for them throughout their work in office.  That is why I find this to be a weak reasoning and more of an excuse that most would buy. This is why I believe that Andrew Jackson is more of the “King Andrew” people gave him rather than the more respectable title of “The people’s king”. 

Should The US Get Involved?

The Monroe Doctrine is a document established by President James Monroe addressing how the country under his presidency will evaluate helping foreign countries. He states that the United States will avoid at all costs to do business with other countries unless it directly affects the US. Since, this is only a Doctrine and not a law it is not used by all presidents. Which makes foreign policy such a big dilemma presently; do we help less fortunate countries? Should we let people die and be forced to dictatorship of sorts since it does not directly concern us? These are the difficult questions politicians argue over everyday.

One example of this is the United States decision to aid the Islamic state fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda. The country is currently spending around a billion dollars to give their armies proper ammunition and protection. There is big controversy on the topic of helping Iraq; since it does not directly affect the United States to spend money on their troops there seems to be little point of doing so. Especially since the US is already in major debt as it is, people believe the government should be focusing on paying that off before helping the other countries. But, on the flipside others argue that we do need to fund these people because of if they can end Al Qaeda and ISIS without using their own troops; it could be saving them from two possible future threats. As the days go by ISIS only seems to becoming stronger and abandoning innocent people in horrid times like these is not something people would want to happen.

If we still followed the Monroe Doctrine in its entirety America would not have dealt with Iraq's problems. Due to the fact that the two countries are not even remotely close. If this was occurring in Latin or South America the US would have gotten involved but it is across the Atlantic Ocean. Also, aiding them in their fight would be like a domination of sorts. This is because  they are paying for the whole war as if it is their own. When it is not; the US is in control of how well the military is equipped and performs on the battlefield as if they are with the United States. Lastly, this does not affect America directly so Iraq and it's surrounding countries should fend for themselves, according to the Monroe Doctrine.

Politics are confusing and will remain to be so as long as there is a government standing. Sometimes, the decision that seems the least likely to be effective turns into the most effective solution. You never know until you try; that is why people continue to fight for their beliefs and ideas in and out of government. So even if something seems impossible because keep fighting and raising awareness until something does happen. Instead of ignoring it and letting it become an even bigger problem. That is the main struggle the US is having with aiding Iraq, bringing attention to it may get something done but it does not affect us yet so why bother? Taking both sides to the argument is essential to a good decision and taking account old articles such as the Monroe Doctrine allows us to see what people would have done. Depending on the person, this could be a good or bad thing which is why we try to remember them for future events.

Citation:
"U.S. Ramps Up Military Aid for Islamic State Fight." Foreign Policy US Ramps Up Military Aid for Islamic State Fight Comments. Web. 5 Dec. 2014. <http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/21/u-s-ramps-up-military-aid-for-islamic

How To Get Away With Murder

Race and identity factored into the fate of Mexico's Revolution because the natives fought against the powerful Spanish that had claimed their land. They felt as though the Spanish had stripped them of their rights and privileges and wanted to gain them back,  Their forces ultimately defeated the Spanish defence and enforced the document "Cry Of Dolores". This laid out all the regulations the people would have to live under with the new government established. To summarize the document, it laid out the rules of redistribution of land and how there would be racial equality for now on. This ultimately falls through as the people who were of Spanish descent were regarded as full Spaniards and anyone else had less rights in comparison. Mexico became a monarchy and followed the rules of the Catholic Church, who also had many privileges and were big influence. But, as long as the natives have complete control of what they do with their country, then everything was worth it to them.

In our world today, there are many cases of people being viewed as less due to race. The example that everyone is talking about at the moment is the controversy of Ferguson. As the article "Ferguson Burning After Grand Jury Announcement" on the USA Today website elaborates on the debate has been going on for over one hundred days; as though there was much to debate to begin with. A man named Michael Brown, who is black, was shot down walking back from his local gas station when officer Darren Wilson, who is white, proceeded to shoot him six times. 

Wilson claims this to be an act of self defense on his behalf, which most could view one shot as self defense. But he shot him six times and left him out on the street for four and a half hours, neglecting to call an ambulance. There were accusations of Michael Brown having committed petty theft at the gas station he went to (which was later proven wrong); but that still does not mean we as a nation should tolerate killing over petty theft. This was clearly an act of racism and should not be allowed to happen within the United States. Which is why everyone is upset of the grand jury's decision to not press charges on Darren Wilson. Protests all around the nation have erupted and the conditions of Ferguson have barely improved. The police continue to be brutal with the peaceful protesters firing rubber bullets and tear gas at pedestrians. It is clear to see that it does not take over one hundred days to serve justice, but rather it takes that amount of time to think of ways to justify inequality. 

Police Shooting Rubber Bullets At Protestors

Powerful image of  the town trying to mask of the racial injustice

Fires being put out due to the brutality 

There is something that people can do now to help make sure a horrible scene like this does not occur again. There is a petition on Change.org that encouraging the idea of making it a law for the police to wear body cameras. Sign the petition here . This way police cannot defend themselves because of their badge and we can clearly see what happened without any controversy. 

This is how race is still a predominant aspect of our lives. We try to believe that its in the past that nothing like that occurs anymore. Do not ignore what is happening; the only way to make a change is to acknowledge what is going on and spreading the word. This is how we have gotten to where we are today in equality for all so far. Just as the revolutions all across Latin America started, the first starting all the way in Mexico slowly spreading word that they had defeated the powerful rulers and won their independence. This sparked revolution after revolution across the South American continent. 

Citations:

Article and Pictures:

Yamiche Alcindor, Greg Toppo, Gary Strauss, and John Bacon. "Ferguson Burning after Grand Jury Announcement."USA Today. Gannett, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguson-grand-jury-deliberations/19474907/>.

Petiton:

Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <https://www.change.org/p/police-chief-jon-belmar-require-ferguson-and-st-louis-county-and-city-police-officers-to-wear-body-cameras?recruiter=187398846&utm_campaign=signature_

Personal Power, and the People

Once Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled to Elba, Europe had many issues to now elaborate on. To fully answer these questions each powerful country sent a representative to meet up and discuss the future of the continent. This monumental meeting is and was referred to as the Congress of Vienna. The whole time, representatives did not look for the best of the people rather, there was an unspoken question at this meeting.  What should they do when their power is threatened? In class, we were given options to topics to choose from and we had to pick the most logical one to us based on that question. We then compared and contrasted our least popular and most popular votes to the actual decisions during the Congress of Vienna.

One of these concepts was the Principle of Intervention. This was the ideology that allowed the more powerful countries to send troops to a country whose people are demanding a revolution. Metternich and the other people of power used this concept to keep their power stable so that they were never overthrown by the people. The stronger country would come in and cause an abrupt end to the revolution, sufficiently lowering the peoples' future motivation to revolt. Thus, protecting the power that the monarchy was trying to protect. The impact of this concept was that it limited the success of revolutions made within countries. It kept the order of Monarchy in place because since no one had a successful revolt to gain a constitution the government stayed.

Overall, the impact of the Congress of Vienna was that they reinstated monarchy and took power from the common people and gave it to the wealthy. Basically, everything that Napoleon had worked for was thrown away as if it did not even occur. Which lead to many revolutions from the people that were shut down for the most part due to the Principle of Intervention mentioned earlier. The Congress of Vienna also reconstructed country boundaries that Napoleon had destroyed.



There were many other ways the leaders of the Congress of Vienna could have done that would have had a more positive impact. Instead of reintroducing monarchy completely they could have picked bits and pieces of monarchy to reinforce. Also, the Principle of Intervention should not have been enacted. It is just proving to the people that they do not trust them and shows that they were aiming to limit their power. If they had made it look like they did allow them to have some say and trust they would have been less likely to think of even forming an revolution. People of power could really have benefited from the saying "You have to lose some to get some". This means that even if they did give up some control it would have worked out in the end since the people would not have a reason to rebel. So then their title and wealth would not ever be jeopardized.  

The Napoleon Effect

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered one of the greatest conquers even to this day. After single handedly conquering most of Europe it is a shock that the American school system tend to neglect him year after year. He impacted the influenced how Europe ran its economic, social, and political systems.

Economically, Napoleon was able to improve how wealthy France was as a country. He controlled pricing on items, he built all new roads and canals to increase the value of France. He also encouraged people to make new businesses. New businesses meant that people would be making and spending money on new things which is good for the economy. Then, during the French Revolution Napoleon seized many great artworks and large sums of money from Italy for France. Even though this was a blow to Italy it helped France build up their value. Later, in 1803, Napoleon decided to sell the Louisiana Territory to America. Which was good for France since they made a lot of money and also America since they could expand westward. Napoleon the opened the Bank of France which balanced out the budget on projects and was in charge of public work programs. This ensured that not too much money was being used to allow the country to become bankrupt and allowed for more economic freedom.

Napoleon changed how France and Europe functioned socially as well. Alongside his armies he abolished nobel and serfdom titles freeing people of a life of indenturement. Allowing them to be able to rise up in the workplace since he also encouraged new businesses. This made people have a different attitude on how the way the world ran and gave way into new social statuses. He ended church privileges so then the Pope did not have all the power. Thus stopping them from forcing followers to think certain ways and make them obey rules. Under the effect of Napoleon's ruling common people had rights to own property and education was available to anyone. The more educated the people are the higher they will succeed. They will encounter much more dynamic thoughts questioning why things are ran and thoroughly advancing the way we live day by day.

He effected how the political system ran drastically, accommodating to the people and not the wealthy. He was able to diminish the nobility meaning that kings and queens would not power over the people. Napoleon established what we call an "meritocracy" which means people were rewarded on how well they were able to perform a skill rather than a social class they were born into. Napoleon was also able to get the members of the Directory, who ran France, to back down since there were threats of overthrowing them. Allowing Napoleon complete control of France and its people.

Overall, you can see how Napoleon affected the world heavily. He was able to pick France up and get it on the way to economic success. Without him, we may have never known what it is to live without the rule of nobility. Serfdom may have still been alive and it constitutes under the category of slavery. This is why Napoleon is one of the most important people of Europe. Napoleon was cunning enough to be able to change economic systems, switch social systems, and alter political systems.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

The other day for class we experienced the always thrilling concepts of capitalism and socialism. To accomplish this our teacher passed out starbursts which we used as currency. Some people started out better than others; some got ten while others received three. To fully explore the capitalist view, we played rock paper scissors for starbursts. Some people became immensely successful while others lost all their candy, and had resorted to a life of crime. Stealing starbursts from the government and each other. At the end of the activity, our teacher announced she was collecting all the starbursts back and redistributing them to an even amount amongst us. It was frustrating to most of us because the majority had three or more. The people with none or less than three were ecstatic though, they'd be getting more than they lost.This is to display how socialism works and its attempt at being an utopian society. These are two different approaches at government both having clear faults and advantages to them.

The founder of socialism is Karl Marx, he was a prosperous philosopher and co-wrote The Communist Manifesto. Which laid out the the basis of communism and socialism. It states that the government should not exist; that once wealth was evenly distributed between everyone that the it would be unnecessary. People would come together and protect one another and do favors for one another since everyone had the same amount of money. The theory was that it'd end greediness and crime throughout the countries. Marx created communism because he believed that the already emplaced rules of capitalism worked against the poor and gave the wealthy too much power. This way no one was better than the other and it didn't matter how much you worked you still had the same amount of opportunities. 

Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations way before Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto. His thought process was that if the government didn't restrict peoples businesses that the economy would improve. This is because companies would lower the cost of their product until one business changed their product or went of business. People wouldn't be forced to buy pricey items and thus the economy would improve. There's this idea referred to as the invisible hand which is since businesses would hit a roadblock it'd lead them in the right direction. The invisible hand would be beneficial to the poor due to the reduced prices for competition. Though, it would take a long time for all this to even out to be fully effective. 

The better option seems to be capitalism, in my opinion. Socialism and communism is too utopian society esque to work out. Everyone always says that communism looks better on paper than actually used. If the people of this world were flawless it would work. No government aspect of communism is slightly terrifying, there'd be no order. I feel as though the streets would end up as one big war zone. Capitalism on its own wouldn't work either, finding a middle ground between these ideas is crucial for a balanced government. This is how many countries are run now, although it is not a perfect system, it keeps the economy afloat.