Abraham Lincoln is
often lauded as the president who freed the slaves, but just how much
impact did his Emancipation Proclamation have? As it turns out, not
much. Lincoln's initial goal was not emancipation, but the preservation
of the Union - and freeing the slaves was a strategic means to that
end. It was an action forced by slave riots that reminded the country
that the American Civil War began as a conflict over slavery, not
secession.
So,
if it wasn't Honest Abe, who did give freedom to the slaves? It was
actually primarily the slaves themselves. They rioted, revolted against
their owners, and basically did their best to remind the Union that the
South had seceded because of contentions over slavery. After the
Emancipation Proclamation, southern slaves were far from free - the
proclamation only served to anger Confederates. Because all of the law
enforcement in the south was fighting for slavery and the South now
considered itself separate, none of the slaves were actually freed by
Lincoln's declaration.
Lincoln
claimed to have a personal belief that all men should be free, but was
originally apathetic about freeing the slaves. His purpose was to keep
the Union together, saying, 'If I could save the Union without freeing
any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the
slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and
leaving others alone, I would also do that.' Throughout the course of
the war, however, his mind began to change and he became more passionate
about emancipation. He was reminded of the slaves' plight by riots and
stories of escapees. In the end, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't
do much practically - but the gesture was nice.
Sources
http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF17_/2238431140fb386a3745a49013852ec4/Freedom_from_Above_or_Below_Documents.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/film/episode3.html#
http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF2g_/25617cd6768f5fcd3745a49013852ec4/Docs_XY_Above__Below.pdf
http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF3y_/abfc09536fdb31443745a49013852ec4/Freedom_to_the_Slaves.jpg
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Sunday, May 3, 2015
A Different Kind of Theatre
We've been learning about the individual battles of the American Civil War lately, and we created a scavenger hunt in class to learn more about each battle. Each person was assigned a battle and had to research it and create a Google Doc about the battle. We made QR codes for the documents and hung them up on the walls all over the school with directions to get to the next station, and ran around the school finding each QR code and taking notes on the battles of the Civil War. We then used Padlet to collaborate on answers to the essential questions.
Ultimately, the Union was victorious in each of the three theatres of war (East, West, and Naval), though their victory in the western theatre was less complete than in the eastern and naval theatres. The north had an established navy before the war, which automatically gave them the upper hand on the naval front. At the battles of Forts Henry and Donelson, the Union used their superior navy to their advantage. In the western theatre, in battles such as Vicksburg and Shiloh, the Union used their larger population and factories to their advantage. The North's economy was based on factory work instead of agriculture, so people flocked to Northern cities to work in the factories. This gave the Union more soldiers and more necessary supplies such as clothing and weapons. Many military academies were located in the South, however, and this allowed the Confederacy to win some battles in the western theatre. In battles such as those of Bull Run, Antietam, and Gettysburg, the North dominated the eastern theatre as well. Their victory in this theatre was again caused by their larger, more well-supplied armies.
Most of the victories of the north were the result of bigger armies, greater resources, and often better strategising. In the beginning of the war, the north had a greater population than the south and an economy based on manufacture. This allowed the north to have more men available to fight and places to make the supplies they needed. They also had more railroads, allowing troops and supplies to move faster. All of these things enabled the union to successfully lay siege to many confederate cities and to cut off southern supply routes.
Ultimately, the Union was victorious in each of the three theatres of war (East, West, and Naval), though their victory in the western theatre was less complete than in the eastern and naval theatres. The north had an established navy before the war, which automatically gave them the upper hand on the naval front. At the battles of Forts Henry and Donelson, the Union used their superior navy to their advantage. In the western theatre, in battles such as Vicksburg and Shiloh, the Union used their larger population and factories to their advantage. The North's economy was based on factory work instead of agriculture, so people flocked to Northern cities to work in the factories. This gave the Union more soldiers and more necessary supplies such as clothing and weapons. Many military academies were located in the South, however, and this allowed the Confederacy to win some battles in the western theatre. In battles such as those of Bull Run, Antietam, and Gettysburg, the North dominated the eastern theatre as well. Their victory in this theatre was again caused by their larger, more well-supplied armies.
Most of the victories of the north were the result of bigger armies, greater resources, and often better strategising. In the beginning of the war, the north had a greater population than the south and an economy based on manufacture. This allowed the north to have more men available to fight and places to make the supplies they needed. They also had more railroads, allowing troops and supplies to move faster. All of these things enabled the union to successfully lay siege to many confederate cities and to cut off southern supply routes.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
A Nation Drawn and Quartered
In class, we explored the results of the election of 1860 and how they were representative of the nation's divisions over slavery. In our exploration, we looked at events and some art from the Civil War era that showed the division of the Union. We made a video explaining the context of the paintings and how they showed the separation.
Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY
http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces
Image citations in video
Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY
http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces
Image citations in video
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Civil War Stats and Strategies Infographic
To make my infographic of the different situations faced by the North and South at the beginning of the American Civil War, I took the most significant statistics and the essentials of each region's war strategies to show the different ways in which each group fought the war. This helped me to understand how the North and South's different economies and strategies either helped them or hurt them. The South's economy was mainly reliant on cotton and agriculture, and if they couldn't trade with outside countries, they wouldn't be able to pay for resources because they had few factories to make goods themselves. The North, however, had many factories and cities and a denser population, allowing for manufacturing of goods and many soldiers.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
And of Course, I Have to Mention the Elephant in the Room
Recently, we've been studying the politics of the early nineteenth century, particularly those which revolved around slavery, which was pretty much the biggest focus of politics at the time. New states were being admitted into the Union, and there was much negotiation around how to keep the balance between slave states and free states, none of which succeeded at keeping the peace for long. We looked at the Dred Scott Decision, the Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, and other events to see some of the events which showed that slavery was at the forefront of the national conscience in the early 1800s. We made a timeline of these events:
In the early 1800s, the country was focussed on keeping the peace between slave holders and abolitionists. In the Compromise of 1850, the territory recently acquired from Mexico was divided and several new laws were put in place to appease both groups. The slave trade was abolished in the capital, which was a win for abolitionists, but the Fugitive Slave Act, while meant to pacify Southerners who would have been angry that the compromise upset the balance of slave and free states, became extremely controversial. The Kansas-Nebraska Act left the territories of Kansas and Nebraska open for voters to decide whether or not to legalise slavery when applying for statehood. This caused the event known as Bleeding Kansas. There were several battles in the territory of Kansas over slavery. In the Dred Scott Decision, a freed slave named Dred Scott sued his former master, 'And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the court is of opinion, that.... Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts.' This also caused great controversy. Many of the biggest events of the early eighteenth century revolved around slavery.
Sources:
http://www.edline.net/files/_BYIYQ_/a95c65dcd7b8c02c3745a49013852ec4/Elephant_in_the_Room_Lesson.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Advancement?
By the early nineteenth century, Eli Whitney had invented
the cotton gin, though he probably had no idea of the impact his invention
would have upon the future of the United States. His goal was to make the growing of cotton
more profitable, and he succeeded – the cotton gin transformed cotton from a
small crop to by far the most important crop in the South. With the increased production of cotton came
an increased demand for labour, and southern plantation owners turned to
slavery. Before the invention of the
cotton gin, ideas from the French revolution of equality and liberty had spread
to the US. Many slaveholders released
their slaves, and there was talk of emancipation. However, needing more workers to produce more
cotton after the invention of the cotton gin, plantation owners bought more
slaves to satisfy the demand. The price
of slaves skyrocketed along with the population of slaves in the United
States. By 1860, the price of a field
hand had tripled from $500 to $1500. By
then, cotton had taken over the economy of the south. They were exporting so much product and
making so much money – over half of the nation’s exportation profit – that the
government didn’t dare upset the system.
They needed the money from the cotton, and all of the farms that grew
cotton relied on slave labour. Click here to see how slavery grew with the production of cotton.
When a system of slavery is based on race, human dignity is
pretty much nullified. People who are
slaves often feel stripped of their dignity when they are forcibly taken from
their homes and made to work without pay.
Slaveholders and traffickers certainly treat slaves as though they have
no dignity, as though they are less than human. When a system of slavery is based on race, the people who perpetuate the system tend to look down on anyone of that race. Even after slavery was abolished in the United States, white people still tended to view black people as inferior, especially in the south. In my opinion, people who own and traffick slaves don't have much in the way of human dignity because they are willing to strip others of their dignity and treat people like they're less than human.
A system of slavery such as this ignores the basic fact that we are all human. We all have the same emotions, thoughts, we all crave love and freedom and happiness. Any system of slavery ignores the fact that people don't enjoy having their dignity taken from them or other people claiming that they own them. You can't truly own another human being. That's what makes slavery so horribly wrong in the first place - people are not possessions.
Sources:
http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-03.html
http://www.edline.net/files/_AeGg2_/1d5157b4b5d488223745a49013852ec4/Slavery_in_The_Founders_Constitution.pdf
http://www.edline.net/files/_AeGiT_/4eed1cce371caa3c3745a49013852ec4/Unit_4_Activity_4_Cotton_Gin_Reading.pdf
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Cook Your Own Dinner
In the nineteenth century, a movement was begun at the Seneca Falls Convention: that for women's rights. Women were not allowed to vote, and were essentially slaves once married, all of their property becoming their husband's. The fact that women's role was to cook and clean and raise children, not to work or speak publicly or vote was quite ingrained into most people's minds. Responses to the Seneca Falls convention were mixed. Some condemned the idea of women's reform, citing reasons from the Bible why they didn't think women should be given rights. Some even went as far as to openly ridicule the reformers and their ideas. Some people, however, agreed that it is ridiculous that half of the human population should be oppressed in this manner and spoke out in support of the reform movement. In a rather sarcastic article in the National Reformer, an anti-reform piece published in the Mechanic's Advocate was ridiculed, and the author asked:
'We would ask but for one valid reason why woman should be deprived of her equal rights as an intelligent being. We have never seen one reason attempted. Even the editor of the Advocate attempts none. He says: 'Now it requires no argument to prove that this is all wrong.' This is disposing of the matter very easily. No argument can be given, and therefore he says none is required.'
Another article published in the Oneida Whig claims:
'This bolt is the most shocking and unnatural incident ever recorded in the history of womanity. If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows? Where our domestic firesides and the holes in our stockings?'
For all their claims of superiority, men sure were incompetent.
Despite the best efforts of reformers in the 1800s, men and women are still treated very differently today. Men are expected to go to work, grill, and watch football, while women are (still) expected to cook and clean and raise the children and go out shopping with their friends. Plenty of men are very sexist. Some guys make comments about women belonging in the kitchen and then complain about being single (one wonders why they are). There still aren't any women in very high governmental positions in the US. My chemistry teacher is a doctor - and almost everyone who doesn't know her and sees her title assumes she's male. Even when women perform the same jobs as men, they are often treated worse and paid less though their work is equal to or even better than their male counterparts'. Unfortunately, sexism is very much a part of today's society, and in many more ways than I have listed here. Maybe we need another reform movement.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Dorothea Dix' Prison Reforms
'The family though enjoying the means of decent livelihood, when unburthened by extra expenses, have not the means of sending him to a distant Hospital. The rich may partake the benefits such institutions afford: the poor must suffer, agonize, and bear heavily out, by slow‐ killing tortures, their unblessed life! Are there no pitying hearts, and open hands that can be moved by these miseries?...'
In this document, Dorothea Dix protests the deplorable treatment of people with mental illnesses in the nineteenth century. She was trying to get state hospitals so that poor family members of the mentally insane could get treatment for their loved ones without having to pay an arm and a leg for it. The document recounts some stories of the horrible conditions in which many people with mental illnesses were forced to live, and contains many testimonials from doctors who have experience working with the mentally insane, making it quite reliable. At the time when this was written, many people who developed mental illnesses whose families were too poor to send them to hospital were jailed or otherwise confined. Dix brings to light some of the truly awful conditions these people were forced into (chained to beds, confined in dark, dirty rooms, unbathed). Some of the descriptions really illuminated the plight of the mentally insane in the nineteenth century. Dorothea Dix' protests are well-planned, citing ways to change the ways that people with mental illnesses were treated in the 1800s. However, this document fails to propose a way to pay for Dix' proposed state hospitals. Dorothea Dix attempted to get better treatment for people with mental illnesses because she felt that the ways in which they were being treated were horrible. She uses stories and descriptions of the conditions that many insane people were in, as well as testimony from doctors and people who have been around those with mental illnesses. She fought to convince others that state hospitals should provide care for people with mental illnesses regarding the financial circumstances of their family, and throughout the document, one can see that she truly believed that the ways in which the mentally insane were treated should be changed and that state hospitals were the way to go.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Paved with Good Intentions
Andrew Jackson has long been known as the 'people's president.' He was dedicated to helping the common man instead of the rich, but the fact remains that many of his choices made while in office and during his campaign were not good ones.
During Jackson's campaign, he offered government positions to people in exchange for their support. He fired over nine hundred officials to make room for the new ones, claiming that he was rooting out corruption in the government. It soon became evident, however, that this was not his true goal. Jackson appointed Samuel Swartwout, a man with criminal tendencies, to a very important financial position against all logic, and he became a laughingstock when Swartwout made off with $1,222,705.09 (the biggest theft the country had ever seen). Jackson's appointment of government officials based on political support instead of competency negatively affected the country for years to come.
Jackson also supported Indian removal, which ended up causing the Trail of Tears. He violated all of the treaties previously made between the United States and Indian nations. In his message to Congress December 7, 1829, Jackson claimed that he thought it would be a calamity if Native American nations were to be overtaken by white people, and 'suggested' that they should move voluntarily to a territory set aside west of the Mississippi. For all of his claims that it would be cruel to force the Indians to move from their land, he essentially forced them to move when he declared that any of the Native Americans who remained within the boundaries of the states would be subject to the United States' laws and taxes.
Andrew Jackson believed that the Second Bank of America was an unconstitutional institution, and that it solely served the rich. He thought that too much power lay in the hands of the rich men who controlled the bank, and that they could potentially influence the political process because they held so much money (because he didn't influence the political process through bribery, definitely). Jackson tore down the bank, resulting in massive inflation. He intended to make life easier for the 'common man,' but Jackson ended up making the worst financial decisions of any president - and that's saying something.
While Andrew Jackson claimed to be all about helping the common man, his actions prioritised a very select portion of the US' population. While his act of dissolving the Second Bank was well-intentioned, it ended up making life much more difficult for the group of people that he intended to help. He hated Native Americans, and while he claimed to be protecting them, to the Indians, he became the equivalent of Hitler. His use of the spoils system showed that Jackson was more concerned about gaining power than making good decisions for the country. Many of his decisions can be summarised this way, putting his own image before the actual good of the people and the country.
Sources
Bank War:
Andrew Jackson, Bank Veto Message to Congress, July 10, 1832, http://www.edline.net/files/_6YGyF_/ab0fb7a998a0f4f83745a49013852ec4/BankWar1.jpg
yhshistory, Jackson Bank Wars, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0pc7eH41vY&feature=youtu.be
Indian Removal:
The History Channel, Andrew Jackson - Trail of Tears, http://www.schooltube.com/video/10ab73bc9f1d4dc89014/AndrewJackson-TrailofTears/
Spoils System:
Robert V Remini, The Life of Andrew Jackson, 1988, http://www.edline.net/files/_6YG4b_/0cdf3b8baade74333745a49013852ec4/SpoilsSystem2.jpg
During Jackson's campaign, he offered government positions to people in exchange for their support. He fired over nine hundred officials to make room for the new ones, claiming that he was rooting out corruption in the government. It soon became evident, however, that this was not his true goal. Jackson appointed Samuel Swartwout, a man with criminal tendencies, to a very important financial position against all logic, and he became a laughingstock when Swartwout made off with $1,222,705.09 (the biggest theft the country had ever seen). Jackson's appointment of government officials based on political support instead of competency negatively affected the country for years to come.
Jackson also supported Indian removal, which ended up causing the Trail of Tears. He violated all of the treaties previously made between the United States and Indian nations. In his message to Congress December 7, 1829, Jackson claimed that he thought it would be a calamity if Native American nations were to be overtaken by white people, and 'suggested' that they should move voluntarily to a territory set aside west of the Mississippi. For all of his claims that it would be cruel to force the Indians to move from their land, he essentially forced them to move when he declared that any of the Native Americans who remained within the boundaries of the states would be subject to the United States' laws and taxes.
Andrew Jackson believed that the Second Bank of America was an unconstitutional institution, and that it solely served the rich. He thought that too much power lay in the hands of the rich men who controlled the bank, and that they could potentially influence the political process because they held so much money (because he didn't influence the political process through bribery, definitely). Jackson tore down the bank, resulting in massive inflation. He intended to make life easier for the 'common man,' but Jackson ended up making the worst financial decisions of any president - and that's saying something.
While Andrew Jackson claimed to be all about helping the common man, his actions prioritised a very select portion of the US' population. While his act of dissolving the Second Bank was well-intentioned, it ended up making life much more difficult for the group of people that he intended to help. He hated Native Americans, and while he claimed to be protecting them, to the Indians, he became the equivalent of Hitler. His use of the spoils system showed that Jackson was more concerned about gaining power than making good decisions for the country. Many of his decisions can be summarised this way, putting his own image before the actual good of the people and the country.
Sources
Bank War:
Andrew Jackson, Bank Veto Message to Congress, July 10, 1832, http://www.edline.net/files/_6YGyF_/ab0fb7a998a0f4f83745a49013852ec4/BankWar1.jpg
yhshistory, Jackson Bank Wars, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0pc7eH41vY&feature=youtu.be
Indian Removal:
The History Channel, Andrew Jackson - Trail of Tears, http://www.schooltube.com/video/10ab73bc9f1d4dc89014/AndrewJackson-TrailofTears/
Spoils System:
Robert V Remini, The Life of Andrew Jackson, 1988, http://www.edline.net/files/_6YG4b_/0cdf3b8baade74333745a49013852ec4/SpoilsSystem2.jpg
The Song Remains the Same
Democracy. Seems so simple, but when you think about it, what does democracy really mean? Is the United States' system truly democratic today? Has it ever been? According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, here is the definition of democracy:
-a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
-an organisation or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights
According to the first definition, the United States is a democracy. But according to the second, it has never been. In the 1800s, when the US was a new country, even the voting process was sometimes questionable.
Votes were recorded orally with no secrecy, candidates were allowed to try and influence people's votes just before the election, and votes were sometimes bought with money or alcohol. Many elections were won under rather suspicious circumstances. Very few people could vote at that time. Only white men were allowed to vote, and many states had restrictions that voters had to own property or pay taxes. When a man named Thomas Dorr tried to get a new constitution in Rhode Island, which still operated under a royal charter in the 1830s, he provoked an incident known as the Dorr War. This was the only violent instance in the United States' transition to universal white manhood suffrage (which still isn't anywhere near universal, but it was a step). Most people didn't have human rights in the US in the 1800s, whereas the ideal democracy grants rights and suffrage to all. By this right, the United States in the 1800s was not very democratic. Slavery still existed, and women were oppressed, and anyone who was not white and male was very much at a disadvantage. While the United States is not truly a place of equality and universal rights even today, we have come a long way from the 1800s.
-a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
-an organisation or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights
According to the first definition, the United States is a democracy. But according to the second, it has never been. In the 1800s, when the US was a new country, even the voting process was sometimes questionable.
Votes were recorded orally with no secrecy, candidates were allowed to try and influence people's votes just before the election, and votes were sometimes bought with money or alcohol. Many elections were won under rather suspicious circumstances. Very few people could vote at that time. Only white men were allowed to vote, and many states had restrictions that voters had to own property or pay taxes. When a man named Thomas Dorr tried to get a new constitution in Rhode Island, which still operated under a royal charter in the 1830s, he provoked an incident known as the Dorr War. This was the only violent instance in the United States' transition to universal white manhood suffrage (which still isn't anywhere near universal, but it was a step). Most people didn't have human rights in the US in the 1800s, whereas the ideal democracy grants rights and suffrage to all. By this right, the United States in the 1800s was not very democratic. Slavery still existed, and women were oppressed, and anyone who was not white and male was very much at a disadvantage. While the United States is not truly a place of equality and universal rights even today, we have come a long way from the 1800s.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Race and Latin American Revolutions
During this unit, we looked at some of the revolutions in Latin America that resulted from Napoleon's conquest of Europe. In particular, we looked at the roles race played in these revolutions and why they are evidence that it is necessary to recognise everyone's value regardless of race. The issue of race and people's refusal to look past it has been an issue for a long time, and continues to be a problem today. We studied the revolutions in Brazil, Mexico, and Gran Colombia and the ways that they were affected by race by splitting into groups. Each group studied a different revolution (my group focussed on the revolution in Gran Colombia) and created a timeline of the major events in their chosen revolution. Then all of the groups compared their timelines and found two similarities and two differences between all of the revolutions.
This is our timeline of the revolution of Gran Colombia, detailing the events and actions of revolutionary Simon Bolivar. Here are some similarities and differences between all of the Latin American revolutions.
Similarities:
Today, racism is less prominent than in the 18- and 1900s. However, it is still very much a problem in society. Just a few months ago, in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown (an 18-year-old black man) was shot by a police officer multiple times after stealing a few cigars from a local store. There are many accounts of what happened, and it is unclear whether Brown had his hands raised in surrender or was moving towards or away from the officer. It is clear, however, that the policeman fired twelve rounds, about 6 of which were hits - and Michael Brown was unarmed. Defenders of the police officer stated that Brown was 6 feet 5 inches, weighed almost 300 pounds, and was moving toward the officer threateningly. They have neglected the fact that the shooter, an Officer Darren Wilson, is 6'4", weighs over 200 pounds, is ten years older than Brown was at the time of his death, and (being a police officer) is trained in combat. Moving towards someone threateningly is absolutely no reason to be shot six times. What's more, Officer Wilson was not indicted. These events sparked nationwide protest, and in Ferguson, the police responded with military force. The whole affair sounds as though we have gone back in time to the Civil Rights Movement. This is one of many things that show that racism is not a problem that we have overcome. Race (and differences in general) is something that humanity is still trying to come to terms with. However, as a Unitarian Universalist, I believe that each person has inherent worth and dignity, and that is a belief that I stand by firmly. It is extremely important to stand up for minorities, because everyone deserves human rights. By recognising everyone's value regardless of the colour of their skin, we can start on the path to freedom and free will for all.
Summary of the Brazilian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCE3_/1f9c3cf44b98eaea3745a49013852ec4/Brazil_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Mexican Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCF5_/b4c681dc17802a623745a49013852ec4/Mexico_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Gran Colombian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCFi_/1d4b498f9f8c12db3745a49013852ec4/Gran_Colombia_Summary.pdf
This is our timeline of the revolution of Gran Colombia, detailing the events and actions of revolutionary Simon Bolivar. Here are some similarities and differences between all of the Latin American revolutions.
Similarities:
- All of the revolutions began with discontent in the lower classes.
- All of these revolutions gained independence from European rule, but none of them ended up with racial equality.
- The Brazilian revolution was mostly peaceful, while the other two were violent.
- In the Mexican revolution, the Royalists were the ones who gained independence.
Today, racism is less prominent than in the 18- and 1900s. However, it is still very much a problem in society. Just a few months ago, in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown (an 18-year-old black man) was shot by a police officer multiple times after stealing a few cigars from a local store. There are many accounts of what happened, and it is unclear whether Brown had his hands raised in surrender or was moving towards or away from the officer. It is clear, however, that the policeman fired twelve rounds, about 6 of which were hits - and Michael Brown was unarmed. Defenders of the police officer stated that Brown was 6 feet 5 inches, weighed almost 300 pounds, and was moving toward the officer threateningly. They have neglected the fact that the shooter, an Officer Darren Wilson, is 6'4", weighs over 200 pounds, is ten years older than Brown was at the time of his death, and (being a police officer) is trained in combat. Moving towards someone threateningly is absolutely no reason to be shot six times. What's more, Officer Wilson was not indicted. These events sparked nationwide protest, and in Ferguson, the police responded with military force. The whole affair sounds as though we have gone back in time to the Civil Rights Movement. This is one of many things that show that racism is not a problem that we have overcome. Race (and differences in general) is something that humanity is still trying to come to terms with. However, as a Unitarian Universalist, I believe that each person has inherent worth and dignity, and that is a belief that I stand by firmly. It is extremely important to stand up for minorities, because everyone deserves human rights. By recognising everyone's value regardless of the colour of their skin, we can start on the path to freedom and free will for all.
Summary of the Brazilian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCE3_/1f9c3cf44b98eaea3745a49013852ec4/Brazil_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Mexican Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCF5_/b4c681dc17802a623745a49013852ec4/Mexico_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Gran Colombian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCFi_/1d4b498f9f8c12db3745a49013852ec4/Gran_Colombia_Summary.pdf
Thursday, January 15, 2015
I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
I haven't got a smartphone, and I don't use social media much. I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, and I don't text much. Does this make me a Luddite?
Not in the traditional sense, no. The word Luddite has come to mean someone who doesn't use much or isn't very good with technology, but originally, the Luddites were a group of protestors in Industrial-Revolution-era Britain. They targeted factories and broke machines, but they weren't necessarily opposed to technology itself as much as the way that technology was used. They were fine with machines as long as they were operated by responsible workers who were trained and paid decent wages, and so long as they didn't take over people's lives completely. Their protests were well-orchestrated, supposedly led by a man named Ned Ludd, who turned out to be fictional. Some of the protestors cross-dressed, and the protests had a playful and lighthearted feel that made them memorable, even as the Luddites were protesting very serious issues, some of which still remain today. For our exploration of the Luddites, we wrote a RAFT essay - a mock primary source letter from someone experiencing the Luddites' protests during the industrial revolution. Here is a factory girl's letter to a cousin in America.
Dearest Cousin Addy,
You know that I have recently gotten a job at a factory in Manchester. I like it here, and I fear that my father would bring me home if I told him what has been happening here, but I need someone to confide to. There are groups of protestors who have been rioting against the factories, smashing machines and killing mill owners. There have been some shots fired, and I am afraid. None of the protests have been against the factory where I am working yet, but I fear that that may change soon. Soldiers have been sent to protect the factories, and I am afraid of getting caught in the crossfire.
Factory work can be dangerous, I know that. Many girls have had terrible accidents and been injured, and I have been very fortunate to avoid something like that. The work is long and hard and the wages are not stellar, but it is nice to be around other girls of my own age and to be able to send money home to my family. I enjoy working here.
I think that these Luddites are right to ask for better wages and working conditions, but the violent protests and the retaliation of the soldiers is frightening. I wish sometimes that I was brave enough to protest for better wages, but that would surely lose me my job, and I might get hurt in the protests. I'll leave the violence to others for now.
Love, Mary
Image: Conniff, Richard, What the Luddites Really Fought Against, smithsonian.com
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/?no-ist=&c=y%3Fno-ist&page=1
 |
| Luddite protestors smashing a textile making machine. |
Dearest Cousin Addy,
You know that I have recently gotten a job at a factory in Manchester. I like it here, and I fear that my father would bring me home if I told him what has been happening here, but I need someone to confide to. There are groups of protestors who have been rioting against the factories, smashing machines and killing mill owners. There have been some shots fired, and I am afraid. None of the protests have been against the factory where I am working yet, but I fear that that may change soon. Soldiers have been sent to protect the factories, and I am afraid of getting caught in the crossfire.
Factory work can be dangerous, I know that. Many girls have had terrible accidents and been injured, and I have been very fortunate to avoid something like that. The work is long and hard and the wages are not stellar, but it is nice to be around other girls of my own age and to be able to send money home to my family. I enjoy working here.
I think that these Luddites are right to ask for better wages and working conditions, but the violent protests and the retaliation of the soldiers is frightening. I wish sometimes that I was brave enough to protest for better wages, but that would surely lose me my job, and I might get hurt in the protests. I'll leave the violence to others for now.
Love, Mary
Image: Conniff, Richard, What the Luddites Really Fought Against, smithsonian.com
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/?no-ist=&c=y%3Fno-ist&page=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)