My Issues with Hitler

Chapter 21, The Collapse and Recovery of Europe, in our world history textbook was a very informative as well as interesting chapter. Such as the start of World War I, in the textbook it says, “The outbreak of that war was an accident, in that none of the major states planned or predicted the archduke’s assassination… (Strayer, pg. 627)” As many history classes that I have taken I do not remember learning that World War I came about from an accident. It makes me think if the archduke had not been assassinated how would the world be? There would have been no First World War and probably not even the Second World War since the Second World War stemmed off the first war. It was Hitler who did not like the outcome of World War I, for he saw Germany falling apart and wanted retaliation. Ok I understand why Hitler was upset knowing that Germany lost some of its land, military, and had to pay fines, but the part that bothers me is the how he believed this myth: “that Germany had not really lost the war but that civilians, especially socialists, communists, and Jews, had betrayed the nation, “stabbing it in the back.” (Strayer, pg. 639)” Now I know that we all know about the Holocaust and the treatment of Jews, but it is so sick to know that so many people we killed just because Hitler thought they backstabbed Germany. Where was the evidence that proves that socialists, communists, and Jews betrayed the nation? And how did Hitler know that it was specifically Jews? It was quite upsetting knowing that Hitler held so much power in Germany from, “suppressing other political parties, abolishing labor unions, arresting opponents, controlling the press and radio, and even controlled the police power over society. (Strayer, pg. 639)” Not only did Hitler blame the Jews, but he restricted their lives in every way possible so that they could not achieve education, work, or marry a German. (pg.641) As I continued reading this chapter I found out that the Jews were not the only ones Hitler tried to get rid of. Hitler had it out for the “Russians, Poles, and other Slavs; Gypsies, or the Roma; mentally or physically handicapped people; homosexuals; communists; and Jehovah’s Witnesses (Strayer, pg.652).” Reading this in the book only made my dislike for Hitler rise even more. How could he off these groups of people who probably never did anything to him? Just because people are handicapped or from a certain country does not mean that they should not be treated fairly. The other thing I guess that I am confused about is how Hitler did not like communism, but wasn’t Germany ran as a communist nation when he was in charge?  

Nuclear Bombs

When reading chapter 22 The Rise and Fall of World Communism, I came across a section that talks about how the United States found out that the Soviets gave nuclear missiles to Cuba in hopes that Cuba would start a nuclear war. Luckily though Cuba and the United States came to an agreement before any war could happen. This must have been really scary for people living in the United States at the time knowing that at any moment that missile could have gone off. I know that I have talked to many older people who have told me that they would have bomb drills at school or was taught what to do or where to go in case of a bombing. I remember when I was younger hearing something about how Russia is supposed to have some missiles aimed at the United States. I am not sure if Russia still has those missiles aimed toward us, but every once in a while I think what will happen if they do still have them pointed at us and they set the missiles off. It is scary to think that parts of the US could be wiped out or maybe even the whole US. The only difference now is that we are not taught what to do or where we should go in case of a bombing, which would be helpful especially with more terrorist attacks happening on our home land. We all know that the Middle East has nuclear bombs and with the right people and equipment we could get bombed. Nuclear bombs is a scary thought, but what to do in that case is something to ponder about.

The Haitian Revolution

     I was reading chapter seventeen from our history textbook by Strayer and it was interesting to read why there was a Revolution in Haiti. To be honest I do not know much of how Haiti came about. According to the textbook Haiti was divided into three groups. The first group the “grands blanc- were rich white landowners- who suggested autonomy for the colony and fewer economic restrictions on trade. The grand blanc’s didn’t care for the demands of the second group the “petits blanc- were another group of white people who sought equality of citizenship for all whites. (pg508)” Both groups opposed equal treatment to people of color. The third group is the slaves and to them the promise of ending slavery “was a freedom that threatened the entire slave labor system. (pg509)” Of course it only makes sense that these three groups since they had very different reasons for a Revolution starting fighting amongst themselves. Eventually the slaves became the powerful group and what I had not known is that this was the only successful slave revolt in history. With the slaves free, Haiti was given it name which I did not know “means “mountainous” or “rugged” in the language of the original Taino people. (pg509)” This was really interesting as I mentioned there were many things that I did not know about Haiti and it contributions to the abolition of slavery. It is great that the land was given back to the people of Haiti but even today there is a lot of violence, death and famine due to the Revolution that took place.

Feminist Beginnings

     I was happy to finally get to this part of history when women fight for the same rights as men. Thank you revolutions for helping women be seen as equals. The only negative thing to this is that it was not started earlier in history. It was only recently within the twentieth century that feminist thinking changed how women were being seen in the home to work and everything in between compared to men. But I also do have to agree with French women’s view instead of focusing on equality, women should focus on ““maternal feminism,” which requires women to watch over the futures of their children and gives women the right to intervene not only in all acts of civil life, but also in all acts of political life. (Strayer pg.521)” I personally think that maternal feminism would work out if we still lived like “leave it to Beaver,” but we don’t. Instead we have women who have partners, but still have to work to make ends meet. There is also all the single women out there, who would not be able just to live a life taking care of their children because who is going to take care of the women. We see it today many women are put in predicaments where they do not have a spouse or partner to help out with finances or the children. So for today’s society I will accept the focus of equality of men and women, but as we see it is not always the case. Men today still get paid more than woman, still hold the highest power in our government, and are biologically trained to be competitive with each other. In the case of equality women have ran for high government office and we see it more within these past ten years. Women are CEO’s and hold other high status employment positions, but biologically we are not bred to compete with each other, instead we are bred with a maternal instinct. So congrats to women around the world, and especially in the United States for fighting for our rights.   

Native Americans vs. Europeans and Spaniards

The beginning of chapter fourteen from our world history textbook opens with talk about Native American and Christopher Columbus. Apparently in 1992 Native Americans objected to the celebration of Columbus Day and from further reading they had good reason too and personally I agree with the Native Americans. Winona LaDuke put it in the best words about Columbus, “Columbus was a perpetrator of genocide…. A slave trader, a thief, a pirate, and most certainly not a hero. To celebrate Columbus is to congratulate the process and history of the invasion. (Strayer, pg.403)” LaDuke had some valid points for not celebrating Columbus, after all it was the Europeans and Spaniard’s who brought with them diseases, knowing that the people of the America’s had not been exposed to many animals or other people from other countries. It was sad to read that some of the Native American population died at a rate of 90% in some areas. I think that part that bothered me the most was reading what an observer was saying to Governor Bradford of Plymouth colony in regards to the rapid death of the Native American’s, “such conditions represented the “good hand of god” at work, “sweeping away great multitudes of the natives…. that he might make room for us. (Strayer pg. 407)” How dare someone think that it was god’s way to kill the Natives. It is no wonder why there is war over and about religion. When you throw god’s name under the bus as a justification for harming other individuals it gets people to believe that your religion is satanic. And then for these settlers to force that religion on the remaining Natives is a slap in the face. For the female natives of the Aztec and Incas who did not die, some were forced to marry Spaniard’s just so they can live and in the Spanish households and have children and not be subject to the abuse bestowed upon the natives. So I can see why Native Americans so not want to celebrate Columbus. I understand that if it were not for Columbus then this would not be the United States, but as the same time coming in and claiming something that was not yours to begin with and then to be celebrated over it, is such a joke. Especially when there is evidence out there saying that he knew that natives would not be immune to germs and diseases, but purposely brought those diseases, is ruthless. Not only did they bring diseases and high death rates, they also brought alcohol. The root to all evil for a Native American. I actually did not know how Native Americans had first come into contact with alcohol, but I did know that alcohol created a huge problem for the Native Americans. With alcohol being widely available and their land taken away many natives became reckless and dangerous to others. Also while reading chapter fifteen I came across a section where the Native American where told to choose a side the French-British side or the European side and help them fight for North America. So after all that they still have to die in battle to fight for land that was originally theirs to begin with.  

Muslims Do Not Equal Terrorist

From our world history textbook I found the chapter about Islam interesting. Last semester I took an Islam religion class which really gave me a better understanding of their religion and life style. I think a lot of people especially here in the United States base their views of what Islam is on what they see and hear from the television and radio. A lot of people believe that if you look like you’re from the Middle East than you’re a terrorists. The biggest stereo type of a Muslim is being referred to as a terrorist. In fact if you study the Muslim religion they do not play an emphasis on violence. In the textbook it says, “The Quran authorized armed struggle against the forces of unbelief and evil as a means of establishing Muslim rule and of defending the umma from threats of infidel aggressors. (Strayer, pp306)” This is what is taken out of context by the group of radicals that we see on TV. To be able to go to heaven when you are a Muslim you need to follow a strict lifestyle filled with prayer, giving to the poor, orphaned, and widowed and living your life the right way including morally making the right decisions. I learned for my Islam class that when judgment day comes, god looks at your book to see if you lived and made the right decisions in life. Depending on your choices in life and what is in your book, you will be sent to heaven or hell. What I do not understand is for example: suicide bombers take their lives because they are promised by someone that Allah will send them to heaven and given certain things, but by a suicide bomber killing himself and innocent others is not leading a life of right decisions, so what would make the suicide bomber think that Allah will look at their book and say “Ok you killed innocent people for no reason you can go to heaven.”? I know that after 9/11 Muslim people were being targeted here in the US as being terrorists. When I watched the news it made me sad to see some of the innocent people being harassed here in the United States, but the media plays a role in how we treat people. Evidence of this is after 9/11 Muslims in the East Bay were being targeted, their homes and places of employment were being vandalized and they would get death threats and be verbally and physically abused in public. If you think about it are we not terrorists too in our own country? We terrorized anyone who looked Middle Eastern after the 9/11 attack. If we wind up going to war with Korea should we all just start terrorizing anyone who looks like they may be Korean here in the U.S? Even to prejudice in the United States I think could be a form of a terrorists attack especially if it is against a large group of people. Perfect example Arizona. If you look like you are illegal a cop can stop you and ask for proper documentation.

The Golden Age

While reading the text book in chapter nine I found something that I thought was unfair that the Chinese did in 800 C.E. was burning the trees in the forest that covered much of the terrain, and pushing the elephants who lived in those lands away so that the emerging population can live there. Then we wonder why there are tree shortages now and animals become extinct. Humans are the monsters destroying nature that the things that live in it.  While further reading the chapter I read about the Sui emperor trying to overtake more land and exhausting resources. It seems to be a pattern from history that money is not being used wisely when it is being invested in trying to take over someone else’s property. If you think about it is it worth it to spend money on all these weapons to use against one another and all the lives that are lost? Yeah, a weapon has a price tag and can be replaced, but a life does not come with a price tag and when staring death in his face the body cannot be replaced. The chapter moves on to what the book calls the “golden age” and its structure under the rule of the Tang and Song dynasties. I did think that the dynasties had some good concepts with the six major ministries and having an agency to check and make sure that the officials were of character and competence. One thing that I do not agree with is how the official’s lets sons of aristocratic families have jobs in public office even though the candidate did not pass the examination. This just goes to show that if you have money you can buy your way into office. Another example of rich people buying their way is how they encroached on the plots of the peasants. You know it is sad because if we could financially be all on the same level I think life would move easier. People could afford health care and homes. There are many days that I sit in my apartment thinking that I am never going to be a homeowner. I do not come from money, and I have always worked hard since I was fourteen years old. Being older I know how to save money and take care of my bills but at the end of the day I do not make enough money to save for a house. That is why if we were more or less equally financially stable no one would have to struggle and everyone would have the same opportunity as everyone else.

Women in the Song Dynasty

I have a huge problem with how women are always being treated from history to now. In Chapter nine of our world history textbook I read the section called Women in the Song Dynasty and how ““the boy leads the girl, the girl follows the boy; the duty of husbands to be resolute and wives to be docile begins with this.”(pg. 246) ” when I read this I was upset. Women were not put on earth to be slaves to men or their pets. Another thing I thought was unfair in the same section was how a widow was not allowed to be married again because it was seen to be shameful to walk through the courtyard again. I believe that is crap. If you are a widow, that means your husband is dead, and if you find yourself with someone else who loved you as much as your husband or more and you want to spend the rest of your life with him, then why not be able to get married again? It is not like you killed your first husband and that is why you were a widow. In that case then yes, you should not be allowed to get remarried again. Another issue that I have with the treatment of women back in the Song Dynasty is the tight wrapping of girls’ feet. It the book it said that the bones in foot would break causing intense pain. This painful foot wrapping became a common practice among the elite families. How crazy were these girls! The foot wrapping was “an image of female beauty and eroticism that emphasized small size, delicacy, and reticence, all of which were necessarily produced by foot binding. (pg.247)” If someone told me that I had to break the bones in my feet to be beautiful and accepted I would laugh in their face. I guess that is why I not too keen on wearing high heels. A similar comparison to the foot wrapping. Women and girls from a young age are influenced and or taught about how we should look and dress. I have tried the whole high heel shoes and I observe other women who wear them. I have noticed the instability in women when they walk in high heels, but they want to look beautiful so they suck it up and wear them. I myself do not like wearing them because after an hour my feet start to hurt, but why do I keep them on? So I can feel that I look beautiful since that is what we are taught is beautiful. But at the same time they say “beauty is only skin deep” and that is why you will barley catch me in heels. Look in my closet and you will find flip flops of every color, because that is what I feel comfortable in. So in regards to the issues of women and how they are treated it looks like history may not be so ancient.