The Monroe Doctrine In Current U.S. Issues

James Monroe was the fifth president of the United States and he served two terms from 1817 until 1825. Monroe Served shortly after the Congress of Vienna took place. He was worried that European countries might interfere with American affairs, or revolts going on in Latin America that would benefit America, by acting on the principle of intervention and the holy alliance that was created during the congress. To secure America and its Latin allies in the annual Message to Congress, James proposed the Monroe Doctrine. The three lasting concepts from the Monroe Doctrine are; separate spheres of influence, non-colonization, and non-intervention. Currently, in Iran the United States foreign policy is taking precautions that abide by the Monroe Doctrine.

An article titled The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why It Matters discussed the United States current situation in relations to Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have strong evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The United States sees this as a huge threat because, as the article states,  “Iran is one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism” Iran supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. They already have the weaponry to send a missile to United Stated allies in the Middle East. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been quoted saying that Israel should be “wiped from the earth,”. As an ally to Israel and other countries in direct contact, the United States have started to take action to stop iran in the production of Nuclear weapons. Not only are the United States allies in danger, but the United States itself believe that Iran’s atomic weapons are also a direct threat to us. It is believed that Iran should be able to flight test an intercontinental missile by 2015.

The third lasting concept of the Monroe Doctrine is; non-intervention (unless it affects us directly). Since the U.S. believes they are directly affected by Iran’s nuclear weapons it is justified for them to take action. The United States and various counties have started to put sanctions on Iran to make it more difficult for them to create nuclear power, or weapons. These sanctions have also taken a toll on Iran’s economy so that the citizens of Iran will encourage their country to stop trying to make nuclear energy. After sanctions were put in place the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom have been encouraging Iran to engage in diplomatic negotiations. The negotiations give Iran sanction relief in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Since the U.S. is staying in its own region and not dominating Iran it is still abiding by the other two principles from the Monroe Doctrine.

The U.S. has tried to follow Monroe’s three lasting principles when concerning nuclear issues in Iran. You can see how effective and important the Monroe Doctrine is because it is still used today when concerning the United States foreign policy.


Source Citation: "The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why It Matters." The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why It Matters. 30 Nov. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. <http://www.adl.org/israel-international/iran/c/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-matters.html>.

   

Race and Identity

In the late 18th century to early 19th century there was a rigid social Hierarchy in colonial Latin America. There were distinct classes and places for people of every race or possible mixture of race, and people did not move from their class. People’s want to keep and maintain their power was the cause of these distinct classes. Having such distinct identities led to fighting between each other and having revolutions because of the treatments some social classes got while the others did not.

The first major revolt happened in Brazil. Prince Pedro was able to stop any bloodshed by agreeing with the revolutionaries and starting a constitutional monarchy. The only downside to the easy resolution of this uprising was that human slave rights were never brought up. In Mexico fighting was going on between races. The Creoles backed by Padre Hidalgo fought for the new leader of Mexico, Napoleon’s brother, against the Peninsulares. The only problem was that the Creoles and Peninsulares looked so similar that it was hard to tell who was who and many unnecessary lives were ended. There was another attempt at an uprising that Father Morales led, but the Creoles did not support it and it was quickly squashed. General Iturbide united the Creoles and Mestizos to get rid of the Peninsulares, declare Mexican independence, and become king of Mexico but was quickly dethroned and replaced by a republic. The only successful uprising was made by Simon Bolivar. Simon realized that if all of the races could join forces and have a common sense of South Americanness they could successfully free themselves from Spanish rule, which they did. Although some races might have resented each other and some may have been treated unfairly because of their race, the only way to progress their country was to join forces.

In recent events, the United States has shown that racial identities are still prominent today and still cause some uprisings. The New York Times released an “opinion page” titled In Fergeson, Issues of Race and Justice. The article consisted of different peoples thoughts and opinions that they sent in regarding the Fergeson trials. Kenneth Reich and George A. Caplin both raised the point that the court and prosecution was not thorough enough and the only reason Wilson  got away with no charges was because there was some inconsistencies from the eyewitnesses. Some people believe that if Wilson was black and Brown was white the court would have found Wilson guilty. Reich said, “African-Americans believes that there are two systems of justice in this country, one for whites, another for blacks” This different treatment in races caused riots similarly to how Creoles rioted because Peninsulares were getting unfair advantages. I agree with the people in this article completely that that if Wilson was black or Brown White the outcome of the trial would be different. On a wider scale, I disagree with how people handled the outcome of the trial. The outcome may have been wrong but doing things such as burn the American Flag does not help the situation. I think the only way we can progress America as a whole is to learn from the 19th century Mexicans and unite races, put past cases of unfairness behind us, and work together to achieve a common goal, equality.

Race and identity will always exist, but it is what is done in regards to people’s race that matters. In the 19th century unfair treatment between races caused fighting, and nothing could successfully be done for Mexico until it was realized that they would be more effective if races worked together. Today in cases such as the Ferguson trials, unfair treatment towards a certain race can still be seen. We must learn from our past to realize that we have to overcome our race and work together under a common cause to make positive change.

Reference article citation:

"In Ferguson, Issues of Race and Justice."The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.  <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/opini on/in-ferguson-issues-of-race-and-justice.h tml>.  

 

Congress of Vienna: What you should do if your power is threatened?

In 1814 Napoleon had been defeated, his empire destroyed, and Europe left in disarray. The boundaries of countries all across Europe had been skewed and cut up, and it had to be put back together. Kings, queens, princes, and diplomats from over 200 states and houses came together to form the Congress of Vienna. The goal of the Congress was to redraw the map of Europe, pick governmental leaders, and prevent further revolutions that would lead Europe to further destruction.

In class our essential question was: what should people in power do when their power is threatened? With Napoleon being exiled the new powers that came to be would be threatened. People might revolt if they disagree with the way the representatives decide to rule their new state or country. During the Congress of Vienna not only did the congress have to complete their goals, but they had to do so in a way that they thought would ensure their power. Our class was assigned to put ourselves into the shoes of Prince Clemens von Metternich, Austrian representative at the  Congress of Vienna, and decide how to redraw borders, pick a government, and prevent revolutions in a way in which he would be able to maintain his power. After our class discussed what we would do if we were Metternich, we found out what really happened.

First, When redrawing Europe, the congress agreed that the boundaries Napoleon made would be diminished and be replaced by boundaries in which their would be a balance of power between Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain, and France. Secondly, the Congress of Vienna decided on governmental leaders. They decided to follow the principle of legitimacy. Finally, in regards to preventing future revolutions most countries and states besides England agreed to follow the Holy Alliance and Principle of Intervention.

Metternich and other powerful people at the congress knew that even if they did everything they could to diminish the threats of their power, people would still revolt. Because of this the Principle of Intervention was deemed extremely important. The Principle of Intervention was the ideology that gave the great powers from different countries the right to send troops into a country to stop revolutions and restore the monarchs of the country under attack. With all of the monarchs and countries looking out for each other, revolutions would be easily repressed. The Principle of Intervention was the key for what people in power should do when their power is threatened.

The Congress of Vienna had put Europe back together and figured out how to protect their own power. I think they did the right thing by making a balance of power when redividing Europe and preventing revolts through the holy alliance and Principle of Intervention. The congress went wrong when deciding on governmental leaders. Since the representatives of the Congress of Vienna were mainly royalty and people of high status, they did what was in their best interest to maintain their power and go back to monarchies like before, even though they may not have been the most efficient. They should have sacrificed some of their own power in order to serve the needs of more people. The representative’s governments would have benefited the most if a system of democracy was put into place. This way the people would be happy because they would have a say in their leader, and it would be hard for another absolute ruler like Napoleon to come to power. This would have stopped revolts and been the most effective to further progress Europe, but because the representatives monarchs’ greed the Congress of Vienna created a new Europe that would be prone to many changes and results in the near future.

                                           Map of Europe after the Congress of Vienna 

Napoleon’s Impact on Europe

Napoleon Bonaparte was the ruler of France in the late 1700’s to early 1800’s. Napoleon controlled most of Europe and his decisions impacted it greatly. Although it may seem like just ruling France wouldn’t affect all of Europe, it did. Under Napoleon's rule France became the owner of up to twenty countries and over fifty percent of Europe. As a ruler Napoleon impacted Europe economically, socially, and politically.

As Napoleon came to power the Industrial Revolution was starting to pick up. Economically France and Europe was improving, but it was disorderly. Napoleon established the bank of France and balanced the budget in order to keep improving the economy and allow it to grow. Bonaparte also undertook massive public work programs to help those who were put out of their job from the Industrial Revolution, and also to help the economy continue to flourish. Throughout Europe Napoleon continued to restore economic prosperity. He encouraged new industry, built roads and canals, and controlled prices. Napoleon did anything and everything he could in order to grow Europe economically. He even took artwork and money from places he conquered.

Socially, Napoleon broke boundaries set in place by previous rulers. The Headley brothers wrote about Napoleon saying,“ by opening the field to talent and genius, however low their birth, he was infinitely superior to all the sovereigns who endeavored to crush him.” Napoleon advanced Europe when he made it into a meritocracy where people were rewarded on their talents instead of their social class. Napoleon continued to diminish the chasm between social classes by abolishing nobility titles and serfdom titles. He got rid of church privileges completely and removed trade barriers. Napoleon also made it so more people, not an exclusive class, had rights to property and an education. By allowing the social classes to become less defined, and stimulating industry Napoleon was growing the skills and forces of society under his rule.

Politically Napoleon was intelligent and forceful. The members of the French Directory resigned after finding out Bonaparte was planning to overthrow them. With his new power Napoleon turned France into a meritocracy with himself as a ruler. Workers in the government were very educated and worthy of their position, causing everything to work together more smoothly. With this new government to back him, Napoleon became relentless about expanding and improving France. Madame de Stael described Napoleon politically saying, “His system was to encroach [intrude] daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence...By alternating between cunning and force he has subjected [conquered] Europe.” Napoleon conquered city after city until over fifty percent of Europe was under his rule. Under his rule, all of Europe was affected by his political strategies and had to conform to his government style.

Napoleon might have been hated by many and even exiled from Europe, but he did impact and change much of Europe for the better. Bonaparte improved Europe economically, socially, and politically. Many changes that he made to France and Europe are still existent in some form today. 

What is the Ideal government?

As a class we did an activity that showed us a representation of how capitalism, socialism, and communism works. At the start of class some of us were handed ten starbursts and some of us were handed three starbursts. The people who only got three starbursts were angry because the people who got ten starbursts did not earn them any more than they did. This shows how the lottery of birth comes into play and makes capitalism seem unfair to some. Once we were handed our original starbursts we were encouraged to play rock paper scissors to win and trade starbursts. There were no rules set up and our teacher did not step in even after we started to steal and cheat. This represents the idea of the “invisible hand”, in which the government does not step in and regulate the market, found in capitalism. After we had played the game for fifteen minutes our teacher stopped us and asked how many starbursts we all had. Those of us who worked hard and earned more felt good but those who had no candies left did not feel good about the game. Some were still angry because the people who started out with more starburst were able to become the most rich more easily. Our teacher then proceeded to collect all of our earnings and then redistribute them equally, so we all had three starbursts. This mocks how socialism works. The people who had no candy were relieved to get some back, and some were glad to all be even, but the majority of the class felt frustrated because they had worked for their starbursts only for the government (our teacher) to step in and give others what you have worked for. At this point we had the option to continue to play or keep our three starbursts. Many of us at this point did not want to continue to play the game and try to earn more. We did not have any competitive drive and greediness, but were happy with our three starbursts. We represented how communism would work. The only problem with communism is that there are always some people who will still strive to earn more. A handful of students in our class continued to play rock paper scissors. As seen through this activity there are many different theories about how the government should be run, and no one theory seems to be able to fulfill everyone's needs and wants.

Karl Marx believed that capitalism is not sufficient in helping the poor, but socialism and eventually communism are necessary to have a successful government that helps the poor. The wage gaps between rich and poor was too big and this was dividing the classes. Marx  believed that the only way to help the poor was to create a classless society in which everyone is equal. Marx’s theory on how to accomplish this was called socialism. In socialism the government interferes and takes money from the poor and distributes it to the rich so that everyone's incomes are equal and no one has unfair advantages in life. Marx says that humans are not naturally greedy and are not naturally competitive in life. He says that because of this people will start to help each other out and will not try to make more than others or create different social classes. Marx calls this idea of a self helping classless society communism. Ideally communism would consist of an equal society in which there is no government. This society would help the poor and make it so there are no “poor”.

Adam Smith has a very different theory on how to help the poor. He believed that the best was to have a good economy and society was for the government to step away and let people have a free market that is not regulated. Smith called this theory “the invisible hand”. He thought thought that competition would force lenders to either lower their prices, increase their quality of their product, or sell a product in higher demand. As they try to compete with other people in the market people’s pay will start to become even and more equal. With room to compete and move up the poor will be able to make a living for themselves in this free market. Also with more people buying and selling products the economy will improve and both the consumer and producer will benefit. The producers will benefit because more people will be buying their product and they will be an equal competition to the sellers around them. The consumers will benefit because as owners are trying to sell their products and compete prices will get lower so buyers, especially the poor, can afford more. Smith calls this overarching idea where the government doesn’t step in and allows classes to be distinguished capitalism. Smith believes capitalism and “the invisible hand” are the answers to helping the poor.

So which theory is best? Some students in our class took part in a socratic seminar in which they discussed the two different theories and which was better. People were able to argue why both theories would be sufficient and insufficient. Ryan said that capitalism promotes a growing inequality between social classes, and the gap between the rich and the poor. He thinks that the government needs to step in. I agree with this because if you are rich it is easier to move up in class because you have more opportunities, but if you are working a mediocre job it is a very slow and hard process to improve in life. Molly agreed with this because she thought as workers lower in the corporation make more money the CEOs and higher up people in the company get even richer because their workers are making more for them. Another downside to capitalism that Julianne and Ryan touched upon is that sometimes the people that are born rich are allowed to be lazy and still end up with more money than the people who are motivated to earn more and have ambition. I also believe that it is unfair that people with more money can live an easier lifestyle and still make more than many others. Although I do not think capitalism is the right choice for government, I also agree with the points that many of my classmates made against socialism and communism. Kyle, April, and Molly all felt that socialism is very frustrating for the people who did earn their money and were not just born into it. They agreed that in the starburst game they worked hard to earn what they did and they felt that it was unfair for the government to take and redistributes what they had earned. This is a major flaw in socialism because some people spend their whole lives trying to improve themselves and then it is just taken away to give to the poor. Another point that Julianne added was that if socialism did occur then everyone’s ambition and purpose in life would be non existent. She said it would be a dystopian society. She thought that everyone has natural drive. I also believe everyone naturally wants to be more and different and I do not think the government has the right to diminish this purpose in society. In the end the majority of the class was able to settle on one theory of how the government could efficiently work. People agreed that the best solution would be to have a capitalist government with a mix of socialist ideas and rules. Troy said that this third alternative would be to enforce the “invisible hand” but put more restrictions and taxes on the rich, and most of my classmates agreed. I think this is the most efficient option. A free market promotes a more improved economy but the government needs to interfere a little to make some ground rules about trading and selling products. Socialism would help and come into play because although the rich and poor classes would remain the rich would be forced to help the poor, making an efficient society.   

Luddites: Taking Sides

The Luddites were skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans. They sabotaged new machinery and attacked factories in the early 1800's to late 1700's at the start of the Industrial Revolution. A common misconception about Luddites is that that were anti technology. The Luddites were protesting new machinery in mills because the machines were putting more people out of jobs and leaving many in economic hardship. Also, the machines were getting rid of the skill and art of weaving that many of the Luddites appreciated and loved. By braking the machines the Luddites were also protesting the factory owners who were not paying their employees enough to make a living. The Luddites were most concerned that  their wages would be too low for the work they were doing.

Two Luddites destroy machinery in mills in 

order to stand up for what they believe in.

Dear cousin frank,
Recently I have been assigned to the city where I must protect factories from Luddites. At first I felt very excited and proud to be a soldier and help the good guys to defeat the bad reckless Luddites. Once I got to the mill I realized this was not the case. The Luddites were not protesting technology but they had a good cause. They were protesting the economic hardship and the decrease of skill in the factories and most importantly the owners who were lowering wages unfairly. Personally the Industrial Revolution has only done good things for me. As a soldier I have more opportunities now that the Luddites and mills exist. Also advances in medicine will help soldiers if we are ever to go to war. Although I have had positive experiences from the Industrial Revolution I have to agree with what the Luddites stand for, and if I was in their situation I would do the same thing. It is not okay for factories and machines to replace people and take away their livings or for factory owners to take advantage of people by lowering their wages. I am torn with what to do because if I let them destroy the factory I will loose my job but if they aren't allowed to protest thousands of mill workers and Luddites will be forced to face unjust economic hardships. I think that I might ask to be assigned to do a different task or protect something else because I can't allow myself to allow something I believe in to be crushed. I would love some encouragement or advice on what to do because many people's livelihoods are at risk. 
Thanks, cousin Billy

Attitudes Towards Women In The 1800’s

In the late 1700’s to early 1800’s the Industrial Revolution started and began to rapidly spread. Mills and factories’ additions to the economy are what fueled the Revolution itself, and it would not have been possible without them. Women are to thank for making up the majority of the work force inside the mills and allowing them to run smoothly. As more women began to migrate to the Lowell mills, society's attitude toward them began to change.

Farm girls and their families were convinced to go work in the mills by owners of the factories themselves who described the opportunities the mills offered for them. For some, they went so their family would have one less mouth to feed as well as an additional paycheck every month to help support them. Others went so they could save money for a dowry they would use to get married and become a proper women with a family. Other women and girls went to the mills to save to get an education so they could get a greater job later in life. No matter the specific reason for going, the majority of women were motivated to go to the mills to get beyond the limits of farm life. They saw the mills as a step towards greater independence.

Once at the mills, the girls would have to face the costs and downsides of the mill if they wanted the benefits. They would have to work long grueling days in which they did not receive any gratitude or praise for within the community. In the new middle class that was forming the idea of “Separate Spheres” between men and women was established. “Separate Spheres” constituted the idea that men were made to go into the harsh conditions of the work force while women were supposed to stay in the more gentle environment of taking care of the home and family. This idea made many people view women working in the mills to be “unladylike” and less respectable.

Women first went on strike in 1834 to protest the wage cuts made in the Lowell mills, as well as to stop threats of losing their increasing  independence. Mill owners and observers were taken by surprise. They did not expect the women to lash out like this, but instead of acknowledging them they continued to ignore them and treat them as unequals. Mill owners got more women to replace them from the countrysides. In 1836 people were forced to pay attention to the women when they went on strike again after mill owners tried to lower wages. This time they knew what to do. They all joined together and were strategic about every action. They got whole mills to shut down until most owners admitted defeat and raised the wages.

The women in the mills forced everyone to look at them and see what they were capable of. Their strength and community made it possible for them to unite and successfully get the results they wanted. After their achievement people payed attention to what they did and learned from it. Journeymen began to work together to form the first trade unions to protect their own independence. Although the mill women would still not be allowed to be a part of these unions and they did not start women’s rights, they got people’s attitudes toward them to shift slightly for the better. They justified their working in an unladylike mill and got a small percentage of the community to appreciate their actions. They were able to take a step away from restricted farm life towards their independence.      

Museum Curator: Cotton Mills of the Industrial Revolution

My classmates and I were assigned to become curators for a certain portion during the industrial revolution that changed the ways people lived and worked, and how they got the products they wanted to buy. Our exhibit that we made covered the topic of weaving and producing cotton, and how it evolved during the industrial revolution. As curators we had to analyze various sources given to us about our topic and then write captions for our sources and create a museum exhibit other students could see and learn from. My groups exhibit was titled, “Spinning into the Future; A Woven Destiny”. Our title shows how that the industrialization of spinning cotton led to many other inventions, and the future for the country. This country was destined to progress technologically which started by simply weaving and producing cotton.  

When reading our poster from left to right you can see how the weaving business progressed from a small at home business to large factories. First, when looking at the drawing entitled “Women Spinning” by George walker and the document named “Effect of Losing Cottage Industry for Families” you should learn how people used to make cotton in their own home while raising a family. When big factories started being run, the cottagers who worked from home lost their business and were forced to work in the harsh conditions of mills to make a living. A drawing of John Almond’s British Hand loom is the next source. Visitors should see how this hand loom created a more efficient way for a single person to produce cotton and that it was the stepping stone that led to the inventions of bigger machines found in the factories. The next source in our exhibit is a graph entitled, “Growth of the Cities, London’s Rapid Growth” you can see that as mills were opening more people started to move to the city. London’s population quickly started to grow. Our final two sources are named, “Engraving of a Spinning Jenny” and “Power Looms at a Textile Mill”. The engraving gives you a closer look at how the Spinning Jenny worked and the drawing of the mill gives you an idea of how factories functioned and looked like. When visitors visit our exhibit the main thing we want them to get out of it is how the production of cotton evolved overtime, and how more people coming to the city and the mills themselves led to more inventions and helping the progress of the industrial revolution.

When we finished our projects we visited our other classmates exhibits to learn more about the industrial revolution. I learned from the other exhibits that the industrial revolution had it's benefits, but it also had a dark side. One major invention that the industrial revolution gave birth to was the steam engine. The exhibit “Hot Stuff: how The steam engine fires up the industrial revolution” showed how the steam engine improved travel and trade and also led to the invention of many other things. “The Dark Side of The Revolution” showed the downsides to the revolution. There was a lot of pollution in the air and rivers due to the new factories. Overpopulated cities became a very unhealthy and unsafe place to live. “All work and no play” showed how the many factories of the revolution encouraged child labour. Children would work in dangerous and unhealthy places for minimum wage. Eventually acts like the factory act of 1833 made conditions slightly better because hours were limited. “Cotton or Freedom” showed how the need for cotton increased greatly. This resulted in a slave population increase because cotton workers were in high demand.

Becoming museum curators for a week was not only a lot of fun, but by looking at all of the different exhibits we learned all about the Industrial Revolution. We learned some major inventions like the steam engine and cotton mills, and how it led to bad things like child labour and more slavery.